The Town applied for $1.2 million of Federal complete streets funding through the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCD COG) to complete sidewalks on the west side of Folly from the Ellis Creek bridge to Eugene Gibbs (near Chik-fil-e). This would connect up to the sidewalks included in the County's Camp-Folly improvement project and so complete sidewalks along the west side of Folly to near the old Burger King.
At its November meeting, in response to the Town's application, the BCD COG awarded $1.5 million for bike-pedestrian improvements on Folly Road.
The Town has pledged $400,000 (from our hospitality tax revenue.) Sidewalk infill on Folly Road was a listed project on last year's 1/2 sales tax referendum and the County anticipates that $2 million will be available. The City of Charleston has matched the Town's $400,000, though it will probably only be available in the City's 2019 budget. This adds up to $4.3 million.
While this is plenty of money to complete a sidewalk between the Ellis Creek Bridge and Eugene Gibbs, the project has expanded to become a proposed multi-use path along the west side of Folly from the Ellis Creek Bridge to Sol Legare Road. The cost of the expanded project is $15.9 million.
At the request of the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee, the County prepared an application for Federal complete street funding through the BCD COG for this entire project. The County asked for $6.9 million, which was all of the complete street funding available. The County application arrived too late to be considered at the November meeting, and since the Town's application was funded for $1.5 million, that leaves $5.4 million. We cannot count on the County getting all of the remaining money and it might not get any. However, if it did get all of it, combined with the $4.3 million that would add up to $9.7 million, well short of $15.9 million.
The application for funding the larger project should come before the BCD COG early in the new year. However, the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee is anxious to make recommendations for spending the $4.3 million on hand. Charleston County Transportation Department is preparing options for consideration at the January 17 meeting.
The County application included various options including a sidewalk everywhere there is an existing bike lane on the west side of Folly Road and a mulit-use path elsewhere. The estimate for that was $10.3 million, but I found an inconsistency in the estimates for right-of-way and asked if there was an error. When the error was corrected, the cost of the sidewalk/bike-lane/multi-use path option fell to approximately $9.7 million. While that option could be funded if all of the additional $5.4 million was obtained, as I explained above, receiving any, much less all, of that funding is hardly certain.
The multi-use path option between the Ellis Creek Bridge and George Griffith (Walmart) includes shifting the existing curb on Folly Road into the current roadway taking away the existing bike lane. This would require reconstructing the drainage system. The total cost of the multi-use path along this segment is $7.5 million. The reason for moving the curb is that federal regulations require 12 feet for a multi-use path and it must be 3 feet from the curb. There is not enough room between the existing curb and the Sunoco Station and Doctors Care near the Ellis Creek Bridge and the power substation near Walmart. There is more than enough room for a five foot sidewalk and that would cost less than half--$3.3 million.
In my opinion, moving the curb, reconstructing the drainage, moving all of the underground utilities, and spending $7.5 million is not reasonable. I also think doing nothing in James Island's commercial core is unacceptable.
There are no similar barriers and so no need to move the curb onto the roadway south of George Griffith. (There is no curb south of Grimball/Fort Johnson.) In those segments, the federally-required 12 foot muli-use path 3 feet from the roadway is more practical. There is no bike lane on the west side of Folly between George Griffith and Rafael, so a multi-use path will take care of bikers as well as pedestrians.
We will see what the County transportation engineers say and what the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee recommends.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Town Prevails in LOST Class Action
The class action suit against the Town of James Island filed in 2015 by former Mayoral candidate Trent Kernodle was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The class representatives working with Kernodle were former JIPSD Commissioner Rod Welch, former JIPSD Commission Chair David Engelman and current JIPSD Vice-Chair Sandi Engelman.
The class action sought refunds of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) monies received by the Town. The Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) prohibits any class action for tax refunds and instead requires that taxpayers seek refunds from the county or state official that assessed the property tax. Any dispute regarding a requested refund must be litigated using the State's administrative court system. The RPA instructs any judge hearing a claim in circuit court to dismiss that action without prejudice. Taxpayers seeking a refund may request a refund from the appropriate state or county official.
The Town levied a property tax starting in 2015 and has provided the required credit against that tax, resulting in no net municipal property tax liability. The remaining dispute was over LOST revenue the Town received between 2012 and 2014, before it levied a property tax. The Town's legal position is that it is not required to provide a credit against a tax that does not exist, so the Town did not collect any excess property tax that it must refund. There are approximately forty municipalities in South Carolina without property tax receiving revenue from LOST. None of them provide refunds of credits against a nonexistent tax.
While the Judge dismissed this case, he rejected Kernodle's argument that taxpayers of the Town deserved a refund of a tax they did not pay. In 2016, he added Charleston County as an additional plaintiff against the Town and eventually made it plain that he favored giving the Town's LOST money to Charleston County, who would then use it to provide property tax credits to all County taxpayers. If that had occurred, approximately 2% of the benefit of that money would go to Town taxpayers. Nearly all would have gone to those outside of the Town, mostly people living in Charleston, North Charleston, and Mount Pleasant. Fortunately, Charleston County did not cooperate and supported the Town's position that the RPA required that the suit be dismissed.
There is good reason to believe that the Judge's theory was in error because the distribution of the revenue between municipalities and county government is set out in the statute. In 1995, the City of Charleston made a more plausible argument that the municipal share of LOST revenue should solely be distributed among municipalities that have a property tax to provide a credit against. While I don't agree with that legal position and have no reason to believe the City of Charleston would pursue it again, I also believe it is safer for the Town to continue with a property tax and provide a credit against it. The Town would be shielded from any harm due to legal action based upon that theory, and, in fact, would benefit if the revenues are directed solely to municipalities with a property tax.
The class action sought refunds of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) monies received by the Town. The Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) prohibits any class action for tax refunds and instead requires that taxpayers seek refunds from the county or state official that assessed the property tax. Any dispute regarding a requested refund must be litigated using the State's administrative court system. The RPA instructs any judge hearing a claim in circuit court to dismiss that action without prejudice. Taxpayers seeking a refund may request a refund from the appropriate state or county official.
The Town levied a property tax starting in 2015 and has provided the required credit against that tax, resulting in no net municipal property tax liability. The remaining dispute was over LOST revenue the Town received between 2012 and 2014, before it levied a property tax. The Town's legal position is that it is not required to provide a credit against a tax that does not exist, so the Town did not collect any excess property tax that it must refund. There are approximately forty municipalities in South Carolina without property tax receiving revenue from LOST. None of them provide refunds of credits against a nonexistent tax.
While the Judge dismissed this case, he rejected Kernodle's argument that taxpayers of the Town deserved a refund of a tax they did not pay. In 2016, he added Charleston County as an additional plaintiff against the Town and eventually made it plain that he favored giving the Town's LOST money to Charleston County, who would then use it to provide property tax credits to all County taxpayers. If that had occurred, approximately 2% of the benefit of that money would go to Town taxpayers. Nearly all would have gone to those outside of the Town, mostly people living in Charleston, North Charleston, and Mount Pleasant. Fortunately, Charleston County did not cooperate and supported the Town's position that the RPA required that the suit be dismissed.
There is good reason to believe that the Judge's theory was in error because the distribution of the revenue between municipalities and county government is set out in the statute. In 1995, the City of Charleston made a more plausible argument that the municipal share of LOST revenue should solely be distributed among municipalities that have a property tax to provide a credit against. While I don't agree with that legal position and have no reason to believe the City of Charleston would pursue it again, I also believe it is safer for the Town to continue with a property tax and provide a credit against it. The Town would be shielded from any harm due to legal action based upon that theory, and, in fact, would benefit if the revenues are directed solely to municipalities with a property tax.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
October Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee Meeting
The Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee met on Thursday, October 26. At the last meeting, the Committee had requested that Charleston County have their consultants prepare a proposal appropriate for an application for grant funding from the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCD COG.)
The Reveer Group developed a conceptual plan and cost estimate for a 12 foot multi-use path on the west side of Folly Road from the Ellis Creek Bridge to Sol Legare Road. The estimated cost is $15.9 million. They made a presentation to the Steering Committee.
They identified $9.3 million in possible funding. Charleston County Transportation estimates that there will be approximately $2 million from 1/2 cent sales tax that can be used for this project. The Town has committed $400,000 from our hospitality tax revenue. At the meeting, Charleston City Councilwoman (and Steering Committee Vice Chair) Kathleen Wilson said that she believed that the City of Charleston could at least match the contribution of the Town of James Island. The largest source of potential funding is $6.9 million of Federal complete street funding that might be obtained from BCD COG. Adding funding from the City of Charleston, that sums to $9.7 million. That is $6.2 million short.
The Reveer group also looked at ways to reduce the expense and phase in the project. One possibility is to put a 5 foot sidewalk in areas where there is an existing bike path on Folly Road. The cost of that approach is $10.3 million. (The extra $5 million is largely the cost of moving the curb to the edge of the existing bike lane and then putting in an asphalt multi-use path.)
They also broke the project down into segments based upon existing conditions. The first segment is from Ellis Creek to Prescott St. (Prescott is across from Nativity Church.) It is mostly in the Town and is in what the Folly Road Overlay initially identified as James Island's "Commercial Core." That description was also adopted in the Rethink Folly Road Plan. There is a bike path everywhere on this stretch (or will be when the Folly-Camp project is completed in the Spring.) Charleston County Transportation told the consultants to assume that there would be no change to the Folly Camp improvement project, so this cost estimate is based upon that stretch continuing to have sidewalks and a bike path. The existing sidewalks are very patchy--more like nonexistent. Completing the sidewalks in this area would cost $2.3 million. Replacing the bike lane and limited sidewalks with a muli-use path everywhere other than in the area of the Folly-Camp project would be $5.3 million.
The second segment is between Prescott Street and George Griffith Blvd. (Walmart.) This is in what is identified as the "South Village." There is a bike path here and an area of sidewalk, though it is only four feet wide, which is substandard. Completing a 5 foot sidewalk in this area would cost $1.6 million. Replacing the existing bike path and limited sidewalk with a multi-use path would be $2.2 million.
The third segment is from George Griffith Blvd. to Grimball/Fort Johnson. It is also in the "South Village." There is no bike path there, though there is an existing sidewalk. The cost of putting in a multi-use path is $1.6 million.
The fourth segment is from Grimball/Fort Johnson to Rafeal Lane. (This is past Signal Point Road. There is a self storage near this point.) It is in the "South Village." There is currently no sidewalk or bike lane in this area. The cost of a multi-use path would be $2.5 million.
The fifth segment is from Rafeal Lane to Sol Legare. It is in what both the Folly Road Overlay and the Rethink Folly Road Plan describe as "Neighborhood Preservation." There is an existing bike path but no sidewalks. The cost of adding sidewalks is $2.3 million and a multi-use path is $4.3 million.
Based upon the decision of the Steering Committee at its September meeting, the County is going forward with an application to BCD COG for the $15.9 million project. Depending on how much funding is obtained, the Steering Committee will be making future recommendations about ways to reduce cost and phase in the project.
Councilwoman Wilson spoke in favor of building multi-use paths, explaining that if we accept the sidewalk/existing bike path option now, it will be many years, and maybe never, that we will get multi-use paths. Many members of the Steering Committee shared the view that multi-use paths are better than bike paths on Folly Road. The consensus is that few people want to ride a bike right next to the fast moving traffic on Folly Road. That was the conclusion of the Rethink Folly Road plan too.
Also, in the area south of Grimball/Fort Johnson, the proposal is to pipe the existing open ditch and put the multi-use path on top This saves on the cost of obtaining additional land, which is expensive and also obtaining right of way is very time consuming. Some members of the steering committee pointed out that the Rethink Folly Road plan proposed "green" infrastructure, such as bio- swales.
There was also discussion of the Rethink Folly Road Plan's suggestion that we use pervious pavement. This pavement allows water to soak through rather than run off. The Town used such pavement on Ben Road and Jeffrey and Lemontree and is planning to use it for sidewalks on Seaside Lane. It is substantially more expensive than regular pavement, but avoids the need to put in drainage ditches or pipes. The current cost estimates is for using concrete for sidewalks and asphalt for the multi-use path.
I shared my view that the Rethink Folly Road Plan has always been about good, better and best. I emphasized that I believe that getting sidewalks in the commercial core is important. I think current conditions are a travesty.
I explained that the County needs to put forward the application as soon as possible, and that revising it would result in a long delay. A member of the committee asked whether we would be limited to the exact plan described in the application. The consultant said that no, as long as the money was used for bike and pedestrian improvements in the proposed area of Folly Road, things like piping ditches or pervious pavement could be adjusted. No one voiced dissent regarding going forward with the application as soon as possible.
As we have more information about how much funding we will have, the Steering Committee will be making further recommendations.
The Steering Committee will meet on the fourth Wednesday of each month at 2 PM. However, our next meeting will be Wednesday, November 29 (rather than the day before Thanksgiving.)
The Reveer Group developed a conceptual plan and cost estimate for a 12 foot multi-use path on the west side of Folly Road from the Ellis Creek Bridge to Sol Legare Road. The estimated cost is $15.9 million. They made a presentation to the Steering Committee.
They identified $9.3 million in possible funding. Charleston County Transportation estimates that there will be approximately $2 million from 1/2 cent sales tax that can be used for this project. The Town has committed $400,000 from our hospitality tax revenue. At the meeting, Charleston City Councilwoman (and Steering Committee Vice Chair) Kathleen Wilson said that she believed that the City of Charleston could at least match the contribution of the Town of James Island. The largest source of potential funding is $6.9 million of Federal complete street funding that might be obtained from BCD COG. Adding funding from the City of Charleston, that sums to $9.7 million. That is $6.2 million short.
The Reveer group also looked at ways to reduce the expense and phase in the project. One possibility is to put a 5 foot sidewalk in areas where there is an existing bike path on Folly Road. The cost of that approach is $10.3 million. (The extra $5 million is largely the cost of moving the curb to the edge of the existing bike lane and then putting in an asphalt multi-use path.)
They also broke the project down into segments based upon existing conditions. The first segment is from Ellis Creek to Prescott St. (Prescott is across from Nativity Church.) It is mostly in the Town and is in what the Folly Road Overlay initially identified as James Island's "Commercial Core." That description was also adopted in the Rethink Folly Road Plan. There is a bike path everywhere on this stretch (or will be when the Folly-Camp project is completed in the Spring.) Charleston County Transportation told the consultants to assume that there would be no change to the Folly Camp improvement project, so this cost estimate is based upon that stretch continuing to have sidewalks and a bike path. The existing sidewalks are very patchy--more like nonexistent. Completing the sidewalks in this area would cost $2.3 million. Replacing the bike lane and limited sidewalks with a muli-use path everywhere other than in the area of the Folly-Camp project would be $5.3 million.
The second segment is between Prescott Street and George Griffith Blvd. (Walmart.) This is in what is identified as the "South Village." There is a bike path here and an area of sidewalk, though it is only four feet wide, which is substandard. Completing a 5 foot sidewalk in this area would cost $1.6 million. Replacing the existing bike path and limited sidewalk with a multi-use path would be $2.2 million.
The third segment is from George Griffith Blvd. to Grimball/Fort Johnson. It is also in the "South Village." There is no bike path there, though there is an existing sidewalk. The cost of putting in a multi-use path is $1.6 million.
The fourth segment is from Grimball/Fort Johnson to Rafeal Lane. (This is past Signal Point Road. There is a self storage near this point.) It is in the "South Village." There is currently no sidewalk or bike lane in this area. The cost of a multi-use path would be $2.5 million.
The fifth segment is from Rafeal Lane to Sol Legare. It is in what both the Folly Road Overlay and the Rethink Folly Road Plan describe as "Neighborhood Preservation." There is an existing bike path but no sidewalks. The cost of adding sidewalks is $2.3 million and a multi-use path is $4.3 million.
Based upon the decision of the Steering Committee at its September meeting, the County is going forward with an application to BCD COG for the $15.9 million project. Depending on how much funding is obtained, the Steering Committee will be making future recommendations about ways to reduce cost and phase in the project.
Councilwoman Wilson spoke in favor of building multi-use paths, explaining that if we accept the sidewalk/existing bike path option now, it will be many years, and maybe never, that we will get multi-use paths. Many members of the Steering Committee shared the view that multi-use paths are better than bike paths on Folly Road. The consensus is that few people want to ride a bike right next to the fast moving traffic on Folly Road. That was the conclusion of the Rethink Folly Road plan too.
Also, in the area south of Grimball/Fort Johnson, the proposal is to pipe the existing open ditch and put the multi-use path on top This saves on the cost of obtaining additional land, which is expensive and also obtaining right of way is very time consuming. Some members of the steering committee pointed out that the Rethink Folly Road plan proposed "green" infrastructure, such as bio- swales.
There was also discussion of the Rethink Folly Road Plan's suggestion that we use pervious pavement. This pavement allows water to soak through rather than run off. The Town used such pavement on Ben Road and Jeffrey and Lemontree and is planning to use it for sidewalks on Seaside Lane. It is substantially more expensive than regular pavement, but avoids the need to put in drainage ditches or pipes. The current cost estimates is for using concrete for sidewalks and asphalt for the multi-use path.
I shared my view that the Rethink Folly Road Plan has always been about good, better and best. I emphasized that I believe that getting sidewalks in the commercial core is important. I think current conditions are a travesty.
I explained that the County needs to put forward the application as soon as possible, and that revising it would result in a long delay. A member of the committee asked whether we would be limited to the exact plan described in the application. The consultant said that no, as long as the money was used for bike and pedestrian improvements in the proposed area of Folly Road, things like piping ditches or pervious pavement could be adjusted. No one voiced dissent regarding going forward with the application as soon as possible.
As we have more information about how much funding we will have, the Steering Committee will be making further recommendations.
The Steering Committee will meet on the fourth Wednesday of each month at 2 PM. However, our next meeting will be Wednesday, November 29 (rather than the day before Thanksgiving.)
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Flood Insurance
I received a letter from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) with copies of the proposed new flood maps for James Island. In the letter, they said that the Town does not participate in the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program.) They encouraged us to join so our residents could benefit from low cost federal flood insurance.
Of course, many in the Town, including me, have flood insurance with NFIP. The Town was accepted in 2008. At that time, the Town adopted Charleston County's flood management ordinance and did so again in 2012. There has been no lapse in the regulation since 2008. Further, through our intergovernmental agreement, those regulations have been continuously enforced by Charleston County Building Services. Still further, the Town participates in the various educational programs on flood prevention managed by Charleston County.
I explained the situation to FEMA, but their position was that when the Town was closed down in 2011, the Town's participation lapsed. In order to make sure that Town residents could continue to renew their flood insurance policies, we applied again for membership last December.
The Town was reinstated into NFIP this July. The good news is that residents of the Town can continue to renew their policies. Those without flood insurance are eligible to obtain policies.
Unfortunately, FEMA is treating the Town as a new member of NFIP. This is a problem because a new member must wait one year before applying for a CRS (Community Rating System) discount. After we apply, it will be some time before our application is reviewed and we can receive a discount. That means that for the time being, as flood insurance policies are renewed, the previous 30% discount will be removed.
I have contacted Representative Sanford, Senator Graham and Senator Scott asking for their help. In my view, it is very unfair for our residents to treat the Town as a new member.
Since it is impossible to obtain Federal Flood Insurance if your community does not participate in NFIP, when a community first joins, the rates start off high. As a community begins to implement various regulations and educational programs, its residents get a reduction in rates.
The Town is not in that situation. Many of us have had flood insurance policies for years. It is unfair to remove the discounts when all of the flood control regulations and programs remain unchanged.
Senator Graham's staff discussed the issue with FEMA. The FEMA staff agreed that the Town's situation was unique, but they said that existing legislation leaves their hands tied. There is no provision for any waiver.
Senator Scott has been working on the reauthorizing bill for NFIP. I met with members of his staff and they are looking for a legislative fix to help the residents of the Town.
I have also spoken with Congressman Sanford and he has agreed to help us in the House.
I think it will be helpful for residents of the Town to thank Senator Scott, Senator Graham and Representative Sanford for their help and to share with them the importance of fairly priced flood insurance.
Of course, many in the Town, including me, have flood insurance with NFIP. The Town was accepted in 2008. At that time, the Town adopted Charleston County's flood management ordinance and did so again in 2012. There has been no lapse in the regulation since 2008. Further, through our intergovernmental agreement, those regulations have been continuously enforced by Charleston County Building Services. Still further, the Town participates in the various educational programs on flood prevention managed by Charleston County.
The Town was reinstated into NFIP this July. The good news is that residents of the Town can continue to renew their policies. Those without flood insurance are eligible to obtain policies.
Unfortunately, FEMA is treating the Town as a new member of NFIP. This is a problem because a new member must wait one year before applying for a CRS (Community Rating System) discount. After we apply, it will be some time before our application is reviewed and we can receive a discount. That means that for the time being, as flood insurance policies are renewed, the previous 30% discount will be removed.
I have contacted Representative Sanford, Senator Graham and Senator Scott asking for their help. In my view, it is very unfair for our residents to treat the Town as a new member.
Since it is impossible to obtain Federal Flood Insurance if your community does not participate in NFIP, when a community first joins, the rates start off high. As a community begins to implement various regulations and educational programs, its residents get a reduction in rates.
The Town is not in that situation. Many of us have had flood insurance policies for years. It is unfair to remove the discounts when all of the flood control regulations and programs remain unchanged.
Senator Graham's staff discussed the issue with FEMA. The FEMA staff agreed that the Town's situation was unique, but they said that existing legislation leaves their hands tied. There is no provision for any waiver.
Senator Scott has been working on the reauthorizing bill for NFIP. I met with members of his staff and they are looking for a legislative fix to help the residents of the Town.
I have also spoken with Congressman Sanford and he has agreed to help us in the House.
I think it will be helpful for residents of the Town to thank Senator Scott, Senator Graham and Representative Sanford for their help and to share with them the importance of fairly priced flood insurance.
Harborview Road and North Shore
Many residents have complained that drivers continue to turn left coming out of North Shore onto Harbor View Road. I have seen it as well. A few have even seen cars go into the dedicated right turn lane for going onto the North Shore, going the wrong way!
I instructed the Island Sheriff's Patrol to work on it and also asked City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson if the City Police could help. She did ask, but the City Police say they cannot. While the intersection is in the City, just to the south, where the cars are turning, is in the Town.
The Island Sheriff's Patrol has stopped 39 cars in the last month at this intersection for illegal turns. Almost 90 percent are not from James Island. The number one excuse is that their GPS tells them to go to the intersection and turn left. (Google maps does not show this, but it is "online." Many GPS systems require updates, which many drivers fail to do.)
We are working with Charleston County to have better signage on North Shore to better direct them to Harborview Road.
I instructed the Island Sheriff's Patrol to work on it and also asked City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson if the City Police could help. She did ask, but the City Police say they cannot. While the intersection is in the City, just to the south, where the cars are turning, is in the Town.
The Island Sheriff's Patrol has stopped 39 cars in the last month at this intersection for illegal turns. Almost 90 percent are not from James Island. The number one excuse is that their GPS tells them to go to the intersection and turn left. (Google maps does not show this, but it is "online." Many GPS systems require updates, which many drivers fail to do.)
We are working with Charleston County to have better signage on North Shore to better direct them to Harborview Road.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee
Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee
Chairman: Bill Woolsey
Vice Chairwoman: Kathleen Wilson
Elected Officials
Laurie Hull
Joe Qualey
Public Agencies
Josh Johnson
Inez Brown-Crouch
Jeff Burns
Citizen Representatives
Christopher Haynes
Sussan Chavis
Jim Setford
Sarah Dwyer
Private/Non-Profit Representatives
Sherman Evans
Katie Zimmerman
Lauren Gellatly
Jason Crowley
Scott Pfeiffer
Business Owner/Development Representatives
Fred Whittle
Joe Walters
Chairman: Bill Woolsey
Vice Chairwoman: Kathleen Wilson
Elected Officials
Laurie Hull
Joe Qualey
Public Agencies
Josh Johnson
Inez Brown-Crouch
Jeff Burns
Citizen Representatives
Christopher Haynes
Sussan Chavis
Jim Setford
Sarah Dwyer
Private/Non-Profit Representatives
Sherman Evans
Katie Zimmerman
Lauren Gellatly
Jason Crowley
Scott Pfeiffer
Business Owner/Development Representatives
Fred Whittle
Joe Walters
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Rethink Folly Road
The print edition of the Post and Courier had a rather alarming headline regarding Rethink Folly Road. "Bumpy Road to Progress, Effort to Transform Folly Road faces Delays, Lack of Clear Plan." The online headline was also troubling, "It just isn't safe."
Lack of a clear plan? Rethink Folly Road is a plan. The problem is money. Implementing the entire plan would cost tens of millions of dollars. There has never been any notion that this money would suddenly materialize and all of the plan would be implemented right away. Rather, Rethink Folly Road will be implemented gradually and only with approval by the four local governments on the Island.
Lack of a clear plan? Rethink Folly Road is a plan. The problem is money. Implementing the entire plan would cost tens of millions of dollars. There has never been any notion that this money would suddenly materialize and all of the plan would be implemented right away. Rather, Rethink Folly Road will be implemented gradually and only with approval by the four local governments on the Island.
The article suggests that formation of the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee has been a hold up. The Committee has no money and local governments have been moving forward with the plan--step-by-step. The Rethink Folly Road Staff, which is made up of planning professionals from the four local governments and the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments, has been meeting regularly.
The Town hired an engineering firm to develop specific plans for sidewalks and parking improvements from Eugene Gibbs to Ellis Creek. The Rethink Folly Road Staff unanimously endorsed the Town's application for a grant from the COG to fund construction.
The Town hired an engineering firm to develop specific plans for sidewalks and parking improvements from Eugene Gibbs to Ellis Creek. The Rethink Folly Road Staff unanimously endorsed the Town's application for a grant from the COG to fund construction.
Another element of Rethink Folly Road is improvements in public transportation. The Town will be funding a bus shelter at the corner of Folly and Camp and a bus pull off was added to the County's Folly and Camp intersection improvement project. The Town is also helping to fund landscaping at Camp and Folly.
Meanwhile, the City of Charleston included bike and pedestrian improvements on Folly Road as part of its list of priorities for the 1/2 cent sales tax. After the referendum passed, representatives from the Town, the City, and Charleston County met at Town Hall and agreed to pursue sidewalks between Camp Road and George Griffith Drive. Charleston County Transportation has already begun work on design.
Communication with the COG suggested that combining both the 1/2 sales tax and Town projects into a single project between Ellis Creek and Grimball Road would be more likely to be successful in obtaining a larger amount of COG funding. The Town agreed and the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee endorsed combining the projects at its September meeting. The Steering Committee also recommended improved crossings at Folly and both Camp and Eugene Gibbs. James Island Town Council approved funding for the crosswalks at its September meeting. While creating an inclusive Steering Committee is useful and was accomplished in September, it has never been an impediment to progress by the Rethink Folly Road staff or the four local governments.
The article also confused Rethink Folly Road with the Folly Road Overlay. Rethink Folly Road is a transportation plan while the Folly Road Overlay is a zoning ordinance. The Folly Road Overlay was passed by the Town of James Island, the City of Folly Beach and Charleston County in 2014, but not by the City of Charleston. Last spring, Mayor Tecklenburg expressed interest in having the City of Charleston adopt the Folly Road Overlay with some modifications. The City's proposals have been discussed by a committee made up of planning professionals from the Town, the City of Charleston, the City of Folly Beach and the County, but not the COG. The proposal is to be presented to the James Island Intergovernmental Council in October, not the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee. I believe that the City of Charleston will adopt some version of the Folly Road Overlay before the moratorium expires in November.
Any delay in a recommendation from the City Planning Commission to the City of Charleston Council regarding the Folly Road Overlay does not limit or interfere with work on Rethink Folly Road. The Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee has no role as either a decision making or recommending body regarding zoning ordinances such as the Folly Road Overlay.
Any delay in a recommendation from the City Planning Commission to the City of Charleston Council regarding the Folly Road Overlay does not limit or interfere with work on Rethink Folly Road. The Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee has no role as either a decision making or recommending body regarding zoning ordinances such as the Folly Road Overlay.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Irma and Drainage on James Island
Improving the drainage in the Town has always been one of my key priorities and one shared by Town Council.
On Monday, September 11, when James Island suffered the worst of Hurricane Irma, I was at Town Hall. Early that afternoon, between Irma's rain bands, we began to make forays out to survey the damage.
The flooding due to the storm surge and rain was alarming. We had 7 inches of rain in about 5 hours and approximately four feet of storm surge at close to a king tide. The two problems relate because our drainage empties into the marsh and with a high tide and a surge, there is no where for rain water to go.
Many streets were impassable for most cars and sometimes we went around rather than take a chance that our Town truck would stall. Yorktown, West Madison, and Winburn were all badly flooded, just to name a few. That evening, Kathy and I were out again. While I had been on Fort Johnson Road earlier in the day and it was open, as it was getting too dark to see and we headed home, we discovered that Fort Johnson Road was covered with water near Lighthouse Blvd. We did make it through, but it was deep.
I immediately contacted the Town's public works director, who contacted the public works desk at Charleston County EOC. They contacted SCDOT. I then contacted our state Representative Peter McCoy, and he immediately emailed his contact at SCDOT in Columbia who forwarded it to our local SCDOT office. (Since the 2015 floods, there has been a legislative liaison at SCDOT.)
Early Tuesday morning, I went to check on the areas that had been flooded. I started at Fort Johnson. The water was much lower and no longer overflowing the road, but half the road was still covered. SCDOT had not come and put out any signage. Closer inspection showed that little water was coming out of the drain under Fort Johnson Road at Eaglewood Retreat, but what was coming out was flowing down the ditch to the canal that goes under Eaglewood Retreat and Lighthouse Blvd and then connects to the marsh. I contacted Rep. McCoy again and said that we needed to get that pipe blown out and also some of the culverts across the road. The Town put out signage Tuesday morning.
Water on Fort Johnson Road in that area was nothing new. It happened regularly with hard rains and persisted for more than a week after the flood in 2015. There was a car in the ditch there for several days in 2015.
It turned out that when Eaglewood Retreat was constructed almost a decade ago, the drainage culvert under Fort Johnson Road was closed off and buried. There was nowhere for the water on the north side of the road to go. It was supposed to drain under Fort Johnson Road, and instead, Fort Johnson Road acted as a dam.
In the spring of 2016, a new drainage pipe was placed under Fort Johnson Road. This was a joint project of the Town, SCDOT, the Charleston County, and the City of Charleston. Once that culvert was reestablished, flooding on Fort Johnson Road in this area was much reduced. I have heard reports of water on the road, but it is not as frequent as before the new culvert was installed and it does not persist. The new drainage has been working. Until, of course, late Monday evening with Irma.
However, by Wednesday morning, this section of Fort Johnson Road was clear of water. Having a culvert under the road helped. SCDOT came and blew out the culverts on Thursday. We needed them on Tuesday, but it is difficult to complain too much. Many areas of the state were hit very hard by Irma. The crew that came said they were pulled off another job to do it. I greatly appreciate the help provided by Representative McCoy and also Senators Campsen and Senn in getting SCDOT there. Soon the SCDOT crews took off to go further south to work in areas like Edisto Beach.
More work is needed and we have contacted SCDOT to see when they can get to it. I do think they fixed the most obvious and severe problem--the pipe under the road. But the ditches need work towards Mikell Drive.
I spent much of Tuesday checking on the streets that had been flooded Monday afternoon and evening and nearly all the streets in the Town were clear of water. One exception was Birchdale and a small section of Foxcroft. These streets are mixed City and Town jurisdiction. I received an email from a resident (of the City) and when I investigated, it was clear that the drainage pipe under Ravenswood and Grand Concourse was blocked. These are Town roads (or at least those portions are.) We contacted County EOC and later that day, Charleston County public works sent out a crew, blew out the culverts, and soon the streets were cleared.
Even after Wednesday, there remained standing water in some yards in low lying areas. We have had many complaints that water came in under houses as well as in garages. There are a number of houses, typically on slabs in low lying areas, that had water in the house.
These are serious problems. Still, when I compare our situation to other areas, including the Charleston peninsula, I believe our drainage system held up well to Irma and much better than in 2015.
For example, we had a drain collapse near Highwood Circle in 2015, and there was deep standing water in that area for weeks. This was in Town jurisdiction. The break was repaired for the Town by Charleston County crews in 2016 and the area held up well to Irma.
But I believe we could have done better.
Responsibility for drainage in the area of the Town is divided between four governments. The drainage immediately adjacent to state roads is the responsibility of the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT.) All of the major roads on James Island are state roads. In the area of the Town that includes Folly, Camp, Dills Bluff, Secessionville, and Harborview. However, many neighborhood streets are state roads too. That is because the state paved many dirt roads on James Island in the sixties and seventies. (For example, nearly all of the streets in Lighthouse Point and Eastwood are state roads.)
Ditches or piped systems along Town roads and any ditch or pipe that is not on a road in an area under Town jurisdiction is the responsibility of the Town. The Town has an intergovernmental agreement with Charleston County to provide basic maintenance on Town roads and drainage. The cost of each activity is calculated and deducted from an annual budget of approximately $150,000. This money is part of the County budget and contributed to by all County taxpayers including everyone in the Town. If the limit of that budget is reached, then County crews continue to do work in the Town's jurisdiction, but the charges are billed to the Town. The Town budgets $200,000 per year to cover such charges for basic maintenance as well as special public works projects. We have never reached the annual limit for basic maintenance, but we have paid the County for special public works projects.
The County crews work in the Town, the other smaller municipalities, and the unincorporated areas of Charleston County, including the unincorporated areas of James Island. There is frequently a wait before the County can get to any problem identified by the Town. To solve that problem, the Town recently procured private contractors to do drainage work. The goal is not to replace the County crews but to augment them when necessary.
Like all governments, the bidding process that the Town must undertake is extensive, and Council approved three contractors at our August meeting. On Friday, we signed the contract with Southern Pipe and met with its owner. Eadies Construction, which has long done work for the Isle of Palms, was also procured in August and Council approved having them repair the drainage pipe that connects the ditches on Grimsley Road to the marsh. (In 2015, Grimsley was flooded for several days and the water was deep. Grimsley was clear when I checked it Tuesday, but the drainage pipe, while open, is broken and needs repair at the marsh end.) We anticipate Eadies will start that project soon. Utilities Asset Management is the third firm we procured.
Before 2015, SCDOT had a plan for regular maintenance on their drainage system and were on a six year rotation. After 2015, they added a complaint driven element to their process. When problems develop, rather than saying they would get to it on their regular rotation (maybe in 3 years,) they now can deal with it immediately. That is good for us, since the Town frequently requests work on their ditches and drainage pipes. Just like everyone else, our public works director drives on SCDOT roads in the Town all the time, observing and reporting any drainage issues to SCDOT. Of course, our residents are not shy about contacting us regarding issues on residential streets that belong to SCDOT.
Even so, SCDOT has traditionally had many responsibilities and little money and has been slow to get to problem areas. The recent increase in the gasoline tax should help SCDOT with funding. However, just as we are prepared to have our contractors help when County crews are backlogged, we are now able to do the same when there is an urgent problem with drainage on an SCDOT right of way.
I agree with many that a shift in responsibility for local roads from SCDOT to local government makes sense. However, counties and municipalities have long pointed out that if we accept that responsibility, SCDOT should shift some funding in our direction. That argument has even greater force now that SCDOT has additional funding after the hike in our gas tax. In my view, it is unwise for any local government to just give up on SCDOT and commit to regular maintenance of state roads and the associated drainage with no transfer of funding. In my view, what the Town should do is emergency maintenance when SCDOT delays creates an urgent need for action.
At our September meeting, I asked for and received unanimous approval for spending up to $100,000 from our public works budget on emergency maintenance on SCDOT right of way.
The Town Administrator, Public Works Director, and I have already been reviewing our maps of the areas where we suffered significant flooding and are developing priorities for emergency work. I anticipate that our private contractors will soon be doing work to help with urgent problems on both the Town's and the SCDOT's drainage systems.
The area of the Town is interspersed with areas annexed to the City of Charleston (the City.) Ditches and piped systems along City roads and any ditch or pipe not on a road in an area under City jurisdiction is the responsibility of the City. This can result in situations where a residential street is in the Town for several hundred feet, then in the City for 50 or 100 feet, and then the next section is in the Town. Of course, nearly all of the newer neighborhoods on James Island (post 1980 or so) are entirely under City jurisdiction and their entire drainage system is a City responsibility.
There are a handful of unincorporated "donut holes" in the area of the Town. (About 30% of the land area of James Island is unincorporated but most of that is concentrated in the south and north ends of the Island that are no longer in the Town. Only a little unincorporated area is interspersed in the area of the Town.) In unincorporated areas, any street or road that does not belong to the state is the responsibility of Charleston County as is any ditch or pipe away from those roads. Because of our MOU with Charleston County, maintenance of drainage that is in the Town and in an unincorporated area is usually handled by the exact same people. (Of course, there is always an area of City jurisdiction between the unincorporated area and the Town. That is why the area is unincorporated.) Given the work that the County does for the Town for free, I believe that the Town should not worry about having our contractors do work across the small unincorporated donut holes interspersed within the area of the Town. We will be closely coordinating with the Charleston County storm water division on all of the work done by our private contractors.
While the Town works very closely with Charleston County on drainage, what about the City of Charleston and SCDOT? Soon after the Town was reincorporated in 2012, the Town's Public Works Director organized a storm water managers meeting. Four times a year, representatives from Charleston County, the Town, the City of Charleston and SCDOT meet at Town hall to coordinate storm water efforts. This has been going on several years, and there has been an understanding that we need to clear ditches and drains downstream first and work upstream in a coordinated fashion across all jurisdictions.
This cooperation has deepened over the last year. When I met with Mayor Tecklenburg to discuss shifting our boundaries near the new Town Hall, I also brought up the Down the Island drainage project and asked for his cooperation. Several sections of that ditch are in the City. He was agreeable, but also proposed that we find a way to divide responsibility for the other ditches that cross jurisdictions so that we can get some economies in our regular maintenance. I agreed. Charleston County and City Public works have been working on this.
During the discussions regarding the moratorium, City Councilman Dudley Gregory regularly emphasized at City Council meetings that drainage issues on James Island should be addressed. Mayor Tecklenburg agreed as did everyone else at our spring meeting of the James Island Intergovernmental Council. One issue is that new developments, largely in the City, are being built up with fill and causing flooding in adjacent older neighborhoods, frequently in the unincorporated area. This has been a serious problem near Fleming Road. However, we have a similar problem in an area entirely in the Town near Canopy Cove and the new City section of Harborwoods has negatively impacted some adjacent older parts of Harborwoods that are mostly in the Town. More recently a small 4 home development in the Town was built up with fill and an older home annexed to the City has been having issues. I believe that all of the jurisdictions need changes in our flood management ordinances to address this problem.
But there is much more that needs to be done regarding drainage issues on James Island. There was a call by FEMA for grant applications for Pre-Disaster Mitigation. The Town approached the City and Charleston County about a joint application for a Island-wide drainage study. The City was agreeable and Town Council approved participating at our September meeting. While I don't believe we should count on winning one of these highly competitive national grants, preparing a joint application will help build closer cooperation with other governments on our Island and reinforce the need to think about the Island as a whole.
Planning staff from Folly Beach, the City of Charleston, Charleston County, and the Town have been meeting on revisions to the Folly Road Overlay. This is related to the moratorium passed by the three municipalities (but not the County.) They are to report to the James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting in October. (We had to postpone the meeting because of Irma.)
Rather than try to get the planning group to work on drainage, the Town is proposing that we step up the role of the existing storm water manager group. We have already proposed extending an invitation to elected officials to the next storm water manager meeting (which was also postponed due to Irma.) Drainage will be on the agenda of the James Island Intergovernmental Council in October.
In my view, it is important that the governments on James Island develop a regular inspection program for all of the drainage on James Island. Such inspections are sensible, of course, but they also result in points for the CRS (Community Rating System) in the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program.) Given the mix of jurisdictions, these inspections should be coordinated.
The Harbor View Road improvement project is in its final stages. Right now, the contractor is responsible for maintenance of the drainage system but very soon that responsibility will be turned over to SCDOT. The road crosses and recrosses Town and City jurisdiction, and there are a handful of properties that are unincorporated. We need to make sure that the new piped drainage system is properly maintained. In 2015, while the road was under construction, the flooding on Harbor View was very serious. When I inspected the road Monday afternoon, it was open between Fort Johnson and North Shore, but high water was a problem for some of the houses on the west side of the road. Some of those houses flooded badly in 2015. (Beyond North Shore and up to the JI Connector, the causeway was overwashed by the storm surge and the road was closed. Fortunately, it was open Tuesday morning.)
The Town has many drainage projects in the works. I already mentioned the repair of the culvert at Grimsley that was approved by Council in August and should begin soon. We have also completed design work for installing drainage on an easement we have between Tallwood and Canopy Cove. I anticipate that construction will begin soon. At the Town's request, Charleston County has completed survey work and exhibits to obtain easements on the "Down the Island" drainage ditch that starts on Seaside Lane near the high school, and runs parallel with Fort Johnson Road before heading off to Dills Bluff Road and entering the marsh between Midvale and Camp. That ditch system has a break, missing about 100 feet of ditch near the end of Williams Road. The Town will be begin obtaining those easements soon--with an emphasis on prompt construction the missing portion of the ditch. The Town is also finalizing easements on the ditch between Stone Post Road and Sea Aire. That ditch drains much of the Stone Post area as well as Oceanview Road. The last section, where all of the water drains through, is private. Today, we would never allow a major subdivision with drainage being handled by a ditch along the boundary between two properties and no public (or HOA) easement. We did get Charleston County to clean the private portion of that ditch several years ago, after they initially refused, but only after I promised to get easements on the properties before next time (and appealed to County Councilman Joe Qualey for help.) The Town has also begun to install back flow valves on the outflows into the marsh so that high tides do not go back up into the ditches. While the two we already installed were not cheap, there are more areas where this will help protect homeowners near the marsh from king tides and modest storm surge. (Though it doesn't solve the problem of there being no where for rainwater to go at high tide and with a storm surge)
It has come to my attention that some residents of James Island have reported flooding conditions by making comments on facebook posts. If you had problems with flooding, you need to call the Town at 843-795-4141 or email publicworks@jamesislandsc.us or go to our webpage link for work order requests. While we were out scouting problems following the storm, don't assume that we already know. Contact the Town. If the issue is in the City of Charleston or unincorporated Charleston County we will figure that out and provide the information to the proper government body and also let you know who you should call next time.
Making comments on any facebook page, much less an advocacy group like "save james island," or posting complaints on the Nextdoor app is not the most effective way to communicate with your local government. We have phones, email, a webpage and keep office hours. (We do monitor the Town's official facebook page, but that is not the best way to contact the Town for public work needs.)
You are always free to come to Town Council meetings and express your concerns about drainage or any other issue. However, we will work to solve drainage issues in the Town according to priorities based upon a careful evaluation of the needs of the entire Town. While some members of Council called on citizens to come to our last meeting and sought a Council vote to require the Town to act on the specific drainage concerns brought by the 20 or so residents who came, it failed on a 3 to 2 vote.
I thank Councilmen Blank and Stokes for joining me in showing confidence in the judgement of our Town's staff to set priorities. I am disappointed in those who supported what amounted to a political stunt. Surely, no one would honestly want a system that required residents to show up to a Town Council meeting for their needs to receive serious consideration.
The Town does depend on residents communicating with us. However, water remaining in a ditch several days after a major storm is not a priority. It is when the water is out of the ditch that we have a problem. Because of the topography of James Island, we are not going to get enough drop in our drainage system for all the water to rapidly flow away and promptly empty all of our ditches. Digging the ditches deeper downstream will make standing water more of a problem there.
The Town's key priority is flooding in homes. Then water on roads, especially for extended periods. And water in garages or under houses. Water standing in yards is a problem, especially if it persists. Complaining that water is still in the ditch is not effective way to get priority action after a major flood event, especially if there was a much more serious problem such as water under your home.
I have heard people complaining that they had flooding issues even though they do not live in a flood zone. As one of our local insurance agents told us at Thursday's James Island Exchange Club meeting, everyone lives in a flood zone. However, some people live in flood zones where according to FEMA maps, the risk is so great that flood insurance is required as a condition for any federal benefit program, which includes the federal involvement that exists on pretty much any home mortgage. If you live somewhere that the Federal government effectively mandates flood insurance, it will be more expensive than if you don't. However, you should not assume that officials in Washington have our local conditions perfectly assessed. No one has ever said that you don't need flood insurance just because you aren't effectively compelled to have it by federal regulation. (I have flood insurance, but I am not required to have it by the federal government.)
Finally, if you believe that the Town is not responding to your needs in any way, including drainage, please call me at 843-697-7020 or email me at mayorwoolsey@gmail.com. We want the residents of the Town to come to us first with drainage issues. However, if the hold up is with Charleston County consider reaching out to your County Council representative--Joe Qualey or Anna Johnson. If it is SCDOT issue, then your State Representative, Peter McCoy or Leon Stavrinakis or your State Senator, Chip Campsen or Sandy Senn would be excellent resources. Of course, as I explained above, I can and will reach out to them on your behalf.
On Monday, September 11, when James Island suffered the worst of Hurricane Irma, I was at Town Hall. Early that afternoon, between Irma's rain bands, we began to make forays out to survey the damage.
The flooding due to the storm surge and rain was alarming. We had 7 inches of rain in about 5 hours and approximately four feet of storm surge at close to a king tide. The two problems relate because our drainage empties into the marsh and with a high tide and a surge, there is no where for rain water to go.
Many streets were impassable for most cars and sometimes we went around rather than take a chance that our Town truck would stall. Yorktown, West Madison, and Winburn were all badly flooded, just to name a few. That evening, Kathy and I were out again. While I had been on Fort Johnson Road earlier in the day and it was open, as it was getting too dark to see and we headed home, we discovered that Fort Johnson Road was covered with water near Lighthouse Blvd. We did make it through, but it was deep.
I immediately contacted the Town's public works director, who contacted the public works desk at Charleston County EOC. They contacted SCDOT. I then contacted our state Representative Peter McCoy, and he immediately emailed his contact at SCDOT in Columbia who forwarded it to our local SCDOT office. (Since the 2015 floods, there has been a legislative liaison at SCDOT.)
Early Tuesday morning, I went to check on the areas that had been flooded. I started at Fort Johnson. The water was much lower and no longer overflowing the road, but half the road was still covered. SCDOT had not come and put out any signage. Closer inspection showed that little water was coming out of the drain under Fort Johnson Road at Eaglewood Retreat, but what was coming out was flowing down the ditch to the canal that goes under Eaglewood Retreat and Lighthouse Blvd and then connects to the marsh. I contacted Rep. McCoy again and said that we needed to get that pipe blown out and also some of the culverts across the road. The Town put out signage Tuesday morning.
Water on Fort Johnson Road in that area was nothing new. It happened regularly with hard rains and persisted for more than a week after the flood in 2015. There was a car in the ditch there for several days in 2015.
It turned out that when Eaglewood Retreat was constructed almost a decade ago, the drainage culvert under Fort Johnson Road was closed off and buried. There was nowhere for the water on the north side of the road to go. It was supposed to drain under Fort Johnson Road, and instead, Fort Johnson Road acted as a dam.
In the spring of 2016, a new drainage pipe was placed under Fort Johnson Road. This was a joint project of the Town, SCDOT, the Charleston County, and the City of Charleston. Once that culvert was reestablished, flooding on Fort Johnson Road in this area was much reduced. I have heard reports of water on the road, but it is not as frequent as before the new culvert was installed and it does not persist. The new drainage has been working. Until, of course, late Monday evening with Irma.
However, by Wednesday morning, this section of Fort Johnson Road was clear of water. Having a culvert under the road helped. SCDOT came and blew out the culverts on Thursday. We needed them on Tuesday, but it is difficult to complain too much. Many areas of the state were hit very hard by Irma. The crew that came said they were pulled off another job to do it. I greatly appreciate the help provided by Representative McCoy and also Senators Campsen and Senn in getting SCDOT there. Soon the SCDOT crews took off to go further south to work in areas like Edisto Beach.
More work is needed and we have contacted SCDOT to see when they can get to it. I do think they fixed the most obvious and severe problem--the pipe under the road. But the ditches need work towards Mikell Drive.
I spent much of Tuesday checking on the streets that had been flooded Monday afternoon and evening and nearly all the streets in the Town were clear of water. One exception was Birchdale and a small section of Foxcroft. These streets are mixed City and Town jurisdiction. I received an email from a resident (of the City) and when I investigated, it was clear that the drainage pipe under Ravenswood and Grand Concourse was blocked. These are Town roads (or at least those portions are.) We contacted County EOC and later that day, Charleston County public works sent out a crew, blew out the culverts, and soon the streets were cleared.
Even after Wednesday, there remained standing water in some yards in low lying areas. We have had many complaints that water came in under houses as well as in garages. There are a number of houses, typically on slabs in low lying areas, that had water in the house.
These are serious problems. Still, when I compare our situation to other areas, including the Charleston peninsula, I believe our drainage system held up well to Irma and much better than in 2015.
For example, we had a drain collapse near Highwood Circle in 2015, and there was deep standing water in that area for weeks. This was in Town jurisdiction. The break was repaired for the Town by Charleston County crews in 2016 and the area held up well to Irma.
But I believe we could have done better.
Responsibility for drainage in the area of the Town is divided between four governments. The drainage immediately adjacent to state roads is the responsibility of the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT.) All of the major roads on James Island are state roads. In the area of the Town that includes Folly, Camp, Dills Bluff, Secessionville, and Harborview. However, many neighborhood streets are state roads too. That is because the state paved many dirt roads on James Island in the sixties and seventies. (For example, nearly all of the streets in Lighthouse Point and Eastwood are state roads.)
Ditches or piped systems along Town roads and any ditch or pipe that is not on a road in an area under Town jurisdiction is the responsibility of the Town. The Town has an intergovernmental agreement with Charleston County to provide basic maintenance on Town roads and drainage. The cost of each activity is calculated and deducted from an annual budget of approximately $150,000. This money is part of the County budget and contributed to by all County taxpayers including everyone in the Town. If the limit of that budget is reached, then County crews continue to do work in the Town's jurisdiction, but the charges are billed to the Town. The Town budgets $200,000 per year to cover such charges for basic maintenance as well as special public works projects. We have never reached the annual limit for basic maintenance, but we have paid the County for special public works projects.
The County crews work in the Town, the other smaller municipalities, and the unincorporated areas of Charleston County, including the unincorporated areas of James Island. There is frequently a wait before the County can get to any problem identified by the Town. To solve that problem, the Town recently procured private contractors to do drainage work. The goal is not to replace the County crews but to augment them when necessary.
Like all governments, the bidding process that the Town must undertake is extensive, and Council approved three contractors at our August meeting. On Friday, we signed the contract with Southern Pipe and met with its owner. Eadies Construction, which has long done work for the Isle of Palms, was also procured in August and Council approved having them repair the drainage pipe that connects the ditches on Grimsley Road to the marsh. (In 2015, Grimsley was flooded for several days and the water was deep. Grimsley was clear when I checked it Tuesday, but the drainage pipe, while open, is broken and needs repair at the marsh end.) We anticipate Eadies will start that project soon. Utilities Asset Management is the third firm we procured.
Before 2015, SCDOT had a plan for regular maintenance on their drainage system and were on a six year rotation. After 2015, they added a complaint driven element to their process. When problems develop, rather than saying they would get to it on their regular rotation (maybe in 3 years,) they now can deal with it immediately. That is good for us, since the Town frequently requests work on their ditches and drainage pipes. Just like everyone else, our public works director drives on SCDOT roads in the Town all the time, observing and reporting any drainage issues to SCDOT. Of course, our residents are not shy about contacting us regarding issues on residential streets that belong to SCDOT.
Even so, SCDOT has traditionally had many responsibilities and little money and has been slow to get to problem areas. The recent increase in the gasoline tax should help SCDOT with funding. However, just as we are prepared to have our contractors help when County crews are backlogged, we are now able to do the same when there is an urgent problem with drainage on an SCDOT right of way.
I agree with many that a shift in responsibility for local roads from SCDOT to local government makes sense. However, counties and municipalities have long pointed out that if we accept that responsibility, SCDOT should shift some funding in our direction. That argument has even greater force now that SCDOT has additional funding after the hike in our gas tax. In my view, it is unwise for any local government to just give up on SCDOT and commit to regular maintenance of state roads and the associated drainage with no transfer of funding. In my view, what the Town should do is emergency maintenance when SCDOT delays creates an urgent need for action.
At our September meeting, I asked for and received unanimous approval for spending up to $100,000 from our public works budget on emergency maintenance on SCDOT right of way.
The Town Administrator, Public Works Director, and I have already been reviewing our maps of the areas where we suffered significant flooding and are developing priorities for emergency work. I anticipate that our private contractors will soon be doing work to help with urgent problems on both the Town's and the SCDOT's drainage systems.
The area of the Town is interspersed with areas annexed to the City of Charleston (the City.) Ditches and piped systems along City roads and any ditch or pipe not on a road in an area under City jurisdiction is the responsibility of the City. This can result in situations where a residential street is in the Town for several hundred feet, then in the City for 50 or 100 feet, and then the next section is in the Town. Of course, nearly all of the newer neighborhoods on James Island (post 1980 or so) are entirely under City jurisdiction and their entire drainage system is a City responsibility.
There are a handful of unincorporated "donut holes" in the area of the Town. (About 30% of the land area of James Island is unincorporated but most of that is concentrated in the south and north ends of the Island that are no longer in the Town. Only a little unincorporated area is interspersed in the area of the Town.) In unincorporated areas, any street or road that does not belong to the state is the responsibility of Charleston County as is any ditch or pipe away from those roads. Because of our MOU with Charleston County, maintenance of drainage that is in the Town and in an unincorporated area is usually handled by the exact same people. (Of course, there is always an area of City jurisdiction between the unincorporated area and the Town. That is why the area is unincorporated.) Given the work that the County does for the Town for free, I believe that the Town should not worry about having our contractors do work across the small unincorporated donut holes interspersed within the area of the Town. We will be closely coordinating with the Charleston County storm water division on all of the work done by our private contractors.
While the Town works very closely with Charleston County on drainage, what about the City of Charleston and SCDOT? Soon after the Town was reincorporated in 2012, the Town's Public Works Director organized a storm water managers meeting. Four times a year, representatives from Charleston County, the Town, the City of Charleston and SCDOT meet at Town hall to coordinate storm water efforts. This has been going on several years, and there has been an understanding that we need to clear ditches and drains downstream first and work upstream in a coordinated fashion across all jurisdictions.
This cooperation has deepened over the last year. When I met with Mayor Tecklenburg to discuss shifting our boundaries near the new Town Hall, I also brought up the Down the Island drainage project and asked for his cooperation. Several sections of that ditch are in the City. He was agreeable, but also proposed that we find a way to divide responsibility for the other ditches that cross jurisdictions so that we can get some economies in our regular maintenance. I agreed. Charleston County and City Public works have been working on this.
During the discussions regarding the moratorium, City Councilman Dudley Gregory regularly emphasized at City Council meetings that drainage issues on James Island should be addressed. Mayor Tecklenburg agreed as did everyone else at our spring meeting of the James Island Intergovernmental Council. One issue is that new developments, largely in the City, are being built up with fill and causing flooding in adjacent older neighborhoods, frequently in the unincorporated area. This has been a serious problem near Fleming Road. However, we have a similar problem in an area entirely in the Town near Canopy Cove and the new City section of Harborwoods has negatively impacted some adjacent older parts of Harborwoods that are mostly in the Town. More recently a small 4 home development in the Town was built up with fill and an older home annexed to the City has been having issues. I believe that all of the jurisdictions need changes in our flood management ordinances to address this problem.
But there is much more that needs to be done regarding drainage issues on James Island. There was a call by FEMA for grant applications for Pre-Disaster Mitigation. The Town approached the City and Charleston County about a joint application for a Island-wide drainage study. The City was agreeable and Town Council approved participating at our September meeting. While I don't believe we should count on winning one of these highly competitive national grants, preparing a joint application will help build closer cooperation with other governments on our Island and reinforce the need to think about the Island as a whole.
Planning staff from Folly Beach, the City of Charleston, Charleston County, and the Town have been meeting on revisions to the Folly Road Overlay. This is related to the moratorium passed by the three municipalities (but not the County.) They are to report to the James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting in October. (We had to postpone the meeting because of Irma.)
Rather than try to get the planning group to work on drainage, the Town is proposing that we step up the role of the existing storm water manager group. We have already proposed extending an invitation to elected officials to the next storm water manager meeting (which was also postponed due to Irma.) Drainage will be on the agenda of the James Island Intergovernmental Council in October.
In my view, it is important that the governments on James Island develop a regular inspection program for all of the drainage on James Island. Such inspections are sensible, of course, but they also result in points for the CRS (Community Rating System) in the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program.) Given the mix of jurisdictions, these inspections should be coordinated.
The Harbor View Road improvement project is in its final stages. Right now, the contractor is responsible for maintenance of the drainage system but very soon that responsibility will be turned over to SCDOT. The road crosses and recrosses Town and City jurisdiction, and there are a handful of properties that are unincorporated. We need to make sure that the new piped drainage system is properly maintained. In 2015, while the road was under construction, the flooding on Harbor View was very serious. When I inspected the road Monday afternoon, it was open between Fort Johnson and North Shore, but high water was a problem for some of the houses on the west side of the road. Some of those houses flooded badly in 2015. (Beyond North Shore and up to the JI Connector, the causeway was overwashed by the storm surge and the road was closed. Fortunately, it was open Tuesday morning.)
The Town has many drainage projects in the works. I already mentioned the repair of the culvert at Grimsley that was approved by Council in August and should begin soon. We have also completed design work for installing drainage on an easement we have between Tallwood and Canopy Cove. I anticipate that construction will begin soon. At the Town's request, Charleston County has completed survey work and exhibits to obtain easements on the "Down the Island" drainage ditch that starts on Seaside Lane near the high school, and runs parallel with Fort Johnson Road before heading off to Dills Bluff Road and entering the marsh between Midvale and Camp. That ditch system has a break, missing about 100 feet of ditch near the end of Williams Road. The Town will be begin obtaining those easements soon--with an emphasis on prompt construction the missing portion of the ditch. The Town is also finalizing easements on the ditch between Stone Post Road and Sea Aire. That ditch drains much of the Stone Post area as well as Oceanview Road. The last section, where all of the water drains through, is private. Today, we would never allow a major subdivision with drainage being handled by a ditch along the boundary between two properties and no public (or HOA) easement. We did get Charleston County to clean the private portion of that ditch several years ago, after they initially refused, but only after I promised to get easements on the properties before next time (and appealed to County Councilman Joe Qualey for help.) The Town has also begun to install back flow valves on the outflows into the marsh so that high tides do not go back up into the ditches. While the two we already installed were not cheap, there are more areas where this will help protect homeowners near the marsh from king tides and modest storm surge. (Though it doesn't solve the problem of there being no where for rainwater to go at high tide and with a storm surge)
It has come to my attention that some residents of James Island have reported flooding conditions by making comments on facebook posts. If you had problems with flooding, you need to call the Town at 843-795-4141 or email publicworks@jamesislandsc.us or go to our webpage link for work order requests. While we were out scouting problems following the storm, don't assume that we already know. Contact the Town. If the issue is in the City of Charleston or unincorporated Charleston County we will figure that out and provide the information to the proper government body and also let you know who you should call next time.
Making comments on any facebook page, much less an advocacy group like "save james island," or posting complaints on the Nextdoor app is not the most effective way to communicate with your local government. We have phones, email, a webpage and keep office hours. (We do monitor the Town's official facebook page, but that is not the best way to contact the Town for public work needs.)
You are always free to come to Town Council meetings and express your concerns about drainage or any other issue. However, we will work to solve drainage issues in the Town according to priorities based upon a careful evaluation of the needs of the entire Town. While some members of Council called on citizens to come to our last meeting and sought a Council vote to require the Town to act on the specific drainage concerns brought by the 20 or so residents who came, it failed on a 3 to 2 vote.
I thank Councilmen Blank and Stokes for joining me in showing confidence in the judgement of our Town's staff to set priorities. I am disappointed in those who supported what amounted to a political stunt. Surely, no one would honestly want a system that required residents to show up to a Town Council meeting for their needs to receive serious consideration.
The Town does depend on residents communicating with us. However, water remaining in a ditch several days after a major storm is not a priority. It is when the water is out of the ditch that we have a problem. Because of the topography of James Island, we are not going to get enough drop in our drainage system for all the water to rapidly flow away and promptly empty all of our ditches. Digging the ditches deeper downstream will make standing water more of a problem there.
The Town's key priority is flooding in homes. Then water on roads, especially for extended periods. And water in garages or under houses. Water standing in yards is a problem, especially if it persists. Complaining that water is still in the ditch is not effective way to get priority action after a major flood event, especially if there was a much more serious problem such as water under your home.
I have heard people complaining that they had flooding issues even though they do not live in a flood zone. As one of our local insurance agents told us at Thursday's James Island Exchange Club meeting, everyone lives in a flood zone. However, some people live in flood zones where according to FEMA maps, the risk is so great that flood insurance is required as a condition for any federal benefit program, which includes the federal involvement that exists on pretty much any home mortgage. If you live somewhere that the Federal government effectively mandates flood insurance, it will be more expensive than if you don't. However, you should not assume that officials in Washington have our local conditions perfectly assessed. No one has ever said that you don't need flood insurance just because you aren't effectively compelled to have it by federal regulation. (I have flood insurance, but I am not required to have it by the federal government.)
Finally, if you believe that the Town is not responding to your needs in any way, including drainage, please call me at 843-697-7020 or email me at mayorwoolsey@gmail.com. We want the residents of the Town to come to us first with drainage issues. However, if the hold up is with Charleston County consider reaching out to your County Council representative--Joe Qualey or Anna Johnson. If it is SCDOT issue, then your State Representative, Peter McCoy or Leon Stavrinakis or your State Senator, Chip Campsen or Sandy Senn would be excellent resources. Of course, as I explained above, I can and will reach out to them on your behalf.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Sandbags for Irma
The Town of James Island again worked with the City of Charleston for sandbag distribution for Irma. Both the City of Charleston and the Town of James Island provided sandbags and fill at the two sites--Dock Street Park on Patterson and the James Island Youth Soccer Club property on Fort Johnson Road at Eaglewood retreat.
Special thanks to the James Island Youth Soccer Club and its President Warren Sloane for allowing the Town and City to use their property.
Also, we had a variety of volunteers that helped supervise the sandbag distribution. Neighborhood Council representative Sherman Evans did a great job and put in long hours at the Fort Johnson site. Also, Henrietta Martin, another member of the Town's Neighborhood Council, helped. JIPSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey did some work at both sites and Town Councilman Garrett Milliken was there helping residents fill bags. Madison Darms, James Weatherbre, and Tim Darms from James Island Christian Church helped at the Soccer field. And Quinlan helped Kathy at Dock Street Park.
The City and the Town paid for the sandbags and material. However, it is possible to get compensation from FEMA for part of the cost. That is why we were taking down names and contact information. FEMA requires that we collect the sandbags back, because they may be contaminated with flood water. If you obtained sandbags from either site, please return them to the James Island Youth Soccer Club.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Ellis Creek
For the last year, Ellis Creek has been rated as unsafe for swimming near the Folly Road bridge. Just recently, it again received the same negative report.
Ellis Creek and James Island Creek are the same waterway. It is rated as safe for swimming at the Buxton Bridge where it crosses Harborview Road.
The Town will receive a more detailed report from DHEC on the area of impairment. We will begin working to address the problem with Charleston County and likely with the City of Charleston. To start, there will be much closer monitoring to better understand the extent of the problem.
The expense of this extra monitoring is the key reason for the increase in the Town's storm water fee. It was $34 and now it is $48 for a single family residence. Businesses and other institutions pay based on the amount of impervious surface on their property--generally much more.
The Town has an intergovernmental agreement with Charleston County to participate in their storm water program. Many of the smaller Towns and Cities in the County work with Charleston County. As a condition of the program, all of the storm water money goes to the County. If they have more money than they need, a portion of the money is returned to the Town for storm water projects.
Addressing non-point source pollution is the key responsibility of the storm water program. The City of Charleston has its own storm water program.
Ellis Creek and its associated marsh is under City of Charleston jurisdiction. Most of the neighborhoods just to the south of the problem area are in the Town. That includes Centerville and Bayfront. To the north of Ellis Creeks is a large commercial district in the City of Charleston--Lowes and the surrounding area. Further up the creek to the north west of the bridge is the Central Park community which is in unincorporated Charleston County.
The key problem is Enterococcus, which is a microbe closely associated with human waste. It seems likely that the source of the problem is sewer leaks, failed septic systems, or both. However, we will know more with the added monitoring.
Both the state and federal governments require that municipal governments address this issue. We will do so.
New Speed Limit on Folly Road
The stretch of Folly Road from the James Island Connector to Fort Johnson Road will now have a new speed limit -- 40 MPH. This is consistent with the speed limit further north on Folly Road. A lower speed limit, especially in the commercial core, is consistent with the recommendations of the Rethink Folly Road Study.
New signs will be installed soon.
Thank you to Michael Starnes from requesting the SCDOT do a traffic study.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
James Island Planning
Work on Island-wide Planning continues.
Charleston County did not adopt a moratorium. They won't. James Island is mostly in Councilman Qualey's district but a portion is in Councilwoman Johnson's district. While Councilman Qualey supports the moratorium, Councilwoman Johnson opposes it. The majority of County Council is not going to make such a drastic change in a member of Council's district when that member opposes it.
The largest commercial parcel in the unincorporated portion of James Island that allows for apartments is the site of the Lively. A townhouse development has been proposed for the site. Even if a moratorium were passed at this point, that project will likely go through. Under County zoning rules, the project is a "use of right."
At this point, it is not clear how a moratorium by the County would do much good.
The James Island Intergovernmental Council voted to have representatives of the planning departments of the Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, Charleston County and the City of Folly Beach meet and make a proposal for Joint James Island Planning Committee.
Before any meeting was held, the City of Charleston proposed that the Committee be made up of one elected official and one planning staff member from each jurisdiction.
I agreed.
However, Charleston County rejected the proposal and instead proposed that the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee be tasked with planning and zoning issues for James Island.
I agreed.
However, the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of governments, which funded the Rethink Folly Road study and still plays a coordinating role for the steering committee rejected this expansion of mission.
Charleston County proposed that the Folly Road Overlay Committee be tasked with this effort. That committee had been made up of representatives of the planning staff of Charleston County, the City of Charleston, and the City of Folly Beach and two members of the Planning Commission of the Town of James Island. The two members of the James Island Planning Commission that were on Folly Road Overlay Committee are no longer on the Planning Commission.
I disagreed.
I think that the Town should be treated like the other jurisdictions and be represented by our planning staff. When the Folly Road Overlay Committee was set up, we had not hired a planning director yet, and Charleston County's Planning staff acted as the Town's planning staff. Now we have a planning director, so I thought that we should be treated like the other jurisdictions.
So, it appears that the Joint James Island Planning Committee is made up of representatives of the planning staff of the four jurisdictions.
They had one meeting so far.
They are starting with the Folly Road Overlay.
It is very likely that the City of Charleston will adopt the Folly Road Overlay, but they will be insisting on some modifications. The most positive news is that they are interested in a substantial reduction in the density allowed for residential development in commercial zones.
There appears little interest on the part of the County to make any changes in their zoning in the Folly Road area. However, they continue to participate in the meetings and are generally willing to cooperate with the other jurisdictions.
Any proposals from the Joint James Island Planning Committee will come before the Town's Planning Commission for a recommendation and then go to Town Council for a final decision--at least as it applies in the Town's jurisdiction.
Charleston County did not adopt a moratorium. They won't. James Island is mostly in Councilman Qualey's district but a portion is in Councilwoman Johnson's district. While Councilman Qualey supports the moratorium, Councilwoman Johnson opposes it. The majority of County Council is not going to make such a drastic change in a member of Council's district when that member opposes it.
The largest commercial parcel in the unincorporated portion of James Island that allows for apartments is the site of the Lively. A townhouse development has been proposed for the site. Even if a moratorium were passed at this point, that project will likely go through. Under County zoning rules, the project is a "use of right."
At this point, it is not clear how a moratorium by the County would do much good.
The James Island Intergovernmental Council voted to have representatives of the planning departments of the Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, Charleston County and the City of Folly Beach meet and make a proposal for Joint James Island Planning Committee.
Before any meeting was held, the City of Charleston proposed that the Committee be made up of one elected official and one planning staff member from each jurisdiction.
I agreed.
However, Charleston County rejected the proposal and instead proposed that the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee be tasked with planning and zoning issues for James Island.
I agreed.
However, the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of governments, which funded the Rethink Folly Road study and still plays a coordinating role for the steering committee rejected this expansion of mission.
Charleston County proposed that the Folly Road Overlay Committee be tasked with this effort. That committee had been made up of representatives of the planning staff of Charleston County, the City of Charleston, and the City of Folly Beach and two members of the Planning Commission of the Town of James Island. The two members of the James Island Planning Commission that were on Folly Road Overlay Committee are no longer on the Planning Commission.
I disagreed.
I think that the Town should be treated like the other jurisdictions and be represented by our planning staff. When the Folly Road Overlay Committee was set up, we had not hired a planning director yet, and Charleston County's Planning staff acted as the Town's planning staff. Now we have a planning director, so I thought that we should be treated like the other jurisdictions.
So, it appears that the Joint James Island Planning Committee is made up of representatives of the planning staff of the four jurisdictions.
They had one meeting so far.
They are starting with the Folly Road Overlay.
It is very likely that the City of Charleston will adopt the Folly Road Overlay, but they will be insisting on some modifications. The most positive news is that they are interested in a substantial reduction in the density allowed for residential development in commercial zones.
There appears little interest on the part of the County to make any changes in their zoning in the Folly Road area. However, they continue to participate in the meetings and are generally willing to cooperate with the other jurisdictions.
Any proposals from the Joint James Island Planning Committee will come before the Town's Planning Commission for a recommendation and then go to Town Council for a final decision--at least as it applies in the Town's jurisdiction.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
County Planning Commission to Discuss James Island Moratorium
The Charleston County Planning Commission will consider the James Island Moratorium at their June 12 meeting. It is at 2 PM in the afternoon. The Post and Courier reported that Commissioner Amy Fabri requested this item be placed on the agenda. The Chairman of the County Planning Commission was reported as saying that he was consulting with the County legal staff about whether this was possible because Council failed to send it to the Planning Commission with a tie vote. County Councilman Qualey forwarded me a copy of the agenda. It is here. (As I write this, the version of the agenda on the County website does not include this item. I expect it will be updated soon.)
If there is a motion for a moratorium, it is seconded and it comes to a vote, the County Planning Commission may recommend in favor of a moratorium or against. It would then come to Charleston County Council which may adopt the moratorium or not regardless of the recommendation from the Planning Commission. I believe that a public hearing will be required before any moratorium is adopted by County Council.
A moratorium passed by County Council will apply in the unincorporated areas of James Island. The Town and the City of Charleston have already adopted a moratorium in the areas of their jurisdictions.
If there is a motion for a moratorium, it is seconded and it comes to a vote, the County Planning Commission may recommend in favor of a moratorium or against. It would then come to Charleston County Council which may adopt the moratorium or not regardless of the recommendation from the Planning Commission. I believe that a public hearing will be required before any moratorium is adopted by County Council.
A moratorium passed by County Council will apply in the unincorporated areas of James Island. The Town and the City of Charleston have already adopted a moratorium in the areas of their jurisdictions.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
JIPSD Chair Rejects Town Plan for Tax Relief
I wrote JIPSD Chairman Donald Hollingsworth to share with him a proposal to reduce property taxes in the Town of James Island. I offered to have the Town pay the JIPSD to provide solid waste collection in the Town in exchange for the JIPSD reducing the operating tax they charge in the Town from 53.1 mils to 34 mils. The 34 mils reflects the cost of providing fire protection. The 19.1 mil difference is the cost of providing solid waste collection. If you multiply that 19.1 mils by the Town's property tax base, it comes up to about $95,000 per month. The Town's 20 mil property tax would be sufficient to cover that. With our LOST property tax credit, the net property tax owed the Town would still be zero. The revenue the Town receives from LOST, which is intended to replace the money the Town does not collect in property tax due to the credit, would be available to cover the cost of solid waste collection.
The result for Town taxpayers would be a substantial property tax cut. The JIPSD charges a 53.1 operating millage and a 3.8 bond millage for a total of 56.9 mils. If the JIPSD would agree to the Town's proposal, then the total tax for the JIPSD in the Town would be 37.8, a reduction of 33%.
I believe it is especially urgent for the JIPSD to agree to tax relief. While they plan no property tax increase for the 2017 property tax on the bills coming this October, they are planning on a 6 mil increase in their bond millage in 2018. This will be used to pay for the new fire station. I think they do need a new fire station, but they are talking about a 10.5% increase in property tax! By working with the Town, that could be more than offset and still provide for an ample property tax cut in the Town. Even after the JIPSD increases taxes in 2018, the property tax in the Town would be 23% lower than it is today.
Unfortunately, as before, the answer was no. Chairman Hollingsworth claims that their "customers" will be confused. He claims that they must treat like cases alike, solely mentioning the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach. And he said that it would be inappropriate for them to be involved in the governance of the Town.
It is very disappointing. None of these concerns make much sense. And they certainly don't make enough sense for the Commissioners to choose to raise taxes on the people of the Town by 10% when they have a chance to lower them instead by 23%.
The result for Town taxpayers would be a substantial property tax cut. The JIPSD charges a 53.1 operating millage and a 3.8 bond millage for a total of 56.9 mils. If the JIPSD would agree to the Town's proposal, then the total tax for the JIPSD in the Town would be 37.8, a reduction of 33%.
I believe it is especially urgent for the JIPSD to agree to tax relief. While they plan no property tax increase for the 2017 property tax on the bills coming this October, they are planning on a 6 mil increase in their bond millage in 2018. This will be used to pay for the new fire station. I think they do need a new fire station, but they are talking about a 10.5% increase in property tax! By working with the Town, that could be more than offset and still provide for an ample property tax cut in the Town. Even after the JIPSD increases taxes in 2018, the property tax in the Town would be 23% lower than it is today.
Unfortunately, as before, the answer was no. Chairman Hollingsworth claims that their "customers" will be confused. He claims that they must treat like cases alike, solely mentioning the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach. And he said that it would be inappropriate for them to be involved in the governance of the Town.
It is very disappointing. None of these concerns make much sense. And they certainly don't make enough sense for the Commissioners to choose to raise taxes on the people of the Town by 10% when they have a chance to lower them instead by 23%.
Consideration of Bill to Reunite the Town Blocked at JIPSD
At their April meeting, the JIPSD Commissioners voted 5 to 1 to oppose HB 4076 that would give the voters of the unincorporated area of the District an opportunity to annex to the Town. At that meeting, JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle harshly criticized the bill. Interestingly, he spoke favorably of HB 3669, which would accomplish the same goal.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey asked that consideration of HB 3669 be put on the agenda for the May meeting. While the District rules give each Commissioner the right to place items on the agenda, Chairman Hollingsworth along with Vice Chair Kay Kernodle and Secretary Cubby Wilder refused to place this item on the agenda.
The reason why it is important for the JIPSD Commissioners to support a bill is that Senator Sandy Senn will only support our effort to reunite the Town if District Manager Robert Wise "signs off" on a bill.
If there is going to be any chance for those who were in the Town to have an opportunity to return, it is vitally important that all supporters of the Town, both within and without contact Senator Senn and ask her to support reuniting the Town. It would also help to contact Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, Platt, and Engelman and insist that they start supporting the Town rather than fighting it.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey asked that consideration of HB 3669 be put on the agenda for the May meeting. While the District rules give each Commissioner the right to place items on the agenda, Chairman Hollingsworth along with Vice Chair Kay Kernodle and Secretary Cubby Wilder refused to place this item on the agenda.
The reason why it is important for the JIPSD Commissioners to support a bill is that Senator Sandy Senn will only support our effort to reunite the Town if District Manager Robert Wise "signs off" on a bill.
If there is going to be any chance for those who were in the Town to have an opportunity to return, it is vitally important that all supporters of the Town, both within and without contact Senator Senn and ask her to support reuniting the Town. It would also help to contact Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, Platt, and Engelman and insist that they start supporting the Town rather than fighting it.
James Island Moratorium Set Back at County Council
A motion to send a moratorium to the County Planning Commission failed on a 4-4 tie at Tuesday's County Council meeting. Councilwoman Anna Johnson, whose district includes a small portion of James Island, left the meeting right before the vote. Here is a map of her district. At the far west end, there is a small area of James Island included.
Councilman Joe Qualey supported the motion. He attended the James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting where the elected officials of James Island unanimously recommended that County Council adopt a moratorium consistent with that of the City of Charleston. Councilwoman Anna Johnson was absent from that entire meeting.
Voting in favor of moving the moratorium forward were Chairman Rawl and Councilmen Qualey, Schweer, and Darby. Voting against were Councilmen Summey, Moody, Sass and Pryor.
The Town adopted a moratorium last night. I spoke with Mayor Goodwin, and the City of Folly Beach is likely to adopt a moratorium for its area of jurisdiction on James Island.
Three of the four local governments with planning and zoning authority on James Island have following through. Charleston County looks like it will be the problem.
All of James Island is in Charleston County, but only the unincorporated area of James Island is subject to Charleston County's planning and zoning authority. Nearly all of that area was in the Town before 2011. The Town has been working since 2012 to give them a chance to return to the Town. But that requires legislation in Columbia.
So now we have a situation where planning and zoning for a portion of James Island is determined by a County Council where James Islanders vote for only 2 of the 9 members. The other 7 never have to face any James Island voter. James Island makes up a significant portion of Councilman Qualey's district. Here is a map. The area of James Island that shows white on the map of Qualey's district is in Councilwoman Anna Johnson's district. Perhaps 15% of James Islanders are in her district, but most of her voters are in other portions of Charleston County--Johns Island, Edisto Island, Wadamalaw Island, and St. Pauls Parrish.
In my opinion, there is an obvious solution. We need to get the Town reunited. If these areas were in the Town, we would not have to depend on a County Council over which we have so little influence. Every member of the James Island Town Council lives on James Island and every voter we face in every election lives here too.
I don't think that sending the moratorium to the County Planning Commission was necessary as a first step. Still, it would have been a step forward.
The City of Charleston and the Town of James Island implemented the moratorium by ordinance on first reading. The Town is sending its moratorium to the James Island Planning Commission for a recommendation and will hold a public hearing at our regular Town Council meeting on June 15. Assuming Town Council votes in favor, the moratorium will be adopted as of May 25.
Councilman Joe Qualey supported the motion. He attended the James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting where the elected officials of James Island unanimously recommended that County Council adopt a moratorium consistent with that of the City of Charleston. Councilwoman Anna Johnson was absent from that entire meeting.
Voting in favor of moving the moratorium forward were Chairman Rawl and Councilmen Qualey, Schweer, and Darby. Voting against were Councilmen Summey, Moody, Sass and Pryor.
The Town adopted a moratorium last night. I spoke with Mayor Goodwin, and the City of Folly Beach is likely to adopt a moratorium for its area of jurisdiction on James Island.
Three of the four local governments with planning and zoning authority on James Island have following through. Charleston County looks like it will be the problem.
All of James Island is in Charleston County, but only the unincorporated area of James Island is subject to Charleston County's planning and zoning authority. Nearly all of that area was in the Town before 2011. The Town has been working since 2012 to give them a chance to return to the Town. But that requires legislation in Columbia.
So now we have a situation where planning and zoning for a portion of James Island is determined by a County Council where James Islanders vote for only 2 of the 9 members. The other 7 never have to face any James Island voter. James Island makes up a significant portion of Councilman Qualey's district. Here is a map. The area of James Island that shows white on the map of Qualey's district is in Councilwoman Anna Johnson's district. Perhaps 15% of James Islanders are in her district, but most of her voters are in other portions of Charleston County--Johns Island, Edisto Island, Wadamalaw Island, and St. Pauls Parrish.
In my opinion, there is an obvious solution. We need to get the Town reunited. If these areas were in the Town, we would not have to depend on a County Council over which we have so little influence. Every member of the James Island Town Council lives on James Island and every voter we face in every election lives here too.
I don't think that sending the moratorium to the County Planning Commission was necessary as a first step. Still, it would have been a step forward.
The City of Charleston and the Town of James Island implemented the moratorium by ordinance on first reading. The Town is sending its moratorium to the James Island Planning Commission for a recommendation and will hold a public hearing at our regular Town Council meeting on June 15. Assuming Town Council votes in favor, the moratorium will be adopted as of May 25.
Town Council Passes Moratorium
James Island Town Council held a special meeting and passed on first reading a temporary moratorium in support of the recent James Island moratorium passed by the City of Charleston. The Town's moratorium goes into effect immediately as of 5:15 PM on May 25, 2017 and is scheduled to end at the same time as that of the City of Charleston, on November 5, 2017.
The Town's moratorium is on accepting or processing zoning applications for more than 4 residential units per acre in nonresidential zones and also other development greater that 1500 square feet excepting redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road Overlay Zoning District. Because the Town's existing zoning allows much less density than that of the City of Charleston, the impact of the Town's moratorium will be relatively small. We have never allowed large apartment complexes in our commercial districts.
The exception is different from the moratorium the City of Charleston passed. Of course, the City of Charleston has yet to adopt the Folly Road Overlay District. We hope that they will do so during their moratorium. The reason I supported the exception is that I believe that the Town should not hold up desirable redevelopment in our commercial area that will bring existing commercial buildings into compliance with the Folly Road Overlay. This will involve sidewalks, landscaping and other improvements that will benefit everyone on James Island.
The Town's Planning Commission will be making a recommendation regarding the moratorium at their next meeting. Town Council will hold a public hearing and vote on final approval at its next regular meeting on June 15.
The Town's moratorium is on accepting or processing zoning applications for more than 4 residential units per acre in nonresidential zones and also other development greater that 1500 square feet excepting redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road Overlay Zoning District. Because the Town's existing zoning allows much less density than that of the City of Charleston, the impact of the Town's moratorium will be relatively small. We have never allowed large apartment complexes in our commercial districts.
The exception is different from the moratorium the City of Charleston passed. Of course, the City of Charleston has yet to adopt the Folly Road Overlay District. We hope that they will do so during their moratorium. The reason I supported the exception is that I believe that the Town should not hold up desirable redevelopment in our commercial area that will bring existing commercial buildings into compliance with the Folly Road Overlay. This will involve sidewalks, landscaping and other improvements that will benefit everyone on James Island.
The Town's Planning Commission will be making a recommendation regarding the moratorium at their next meeting. Town Council will hold a public hearing and vote on final approval at its next regular meeting on June 15.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
No Left Turns from North Shore
The Harbor View Road Improvement project made North Shore right-turn-in and right-turn-out only. The traffic engineers (and anyone with any common sense) could see that turning left on Harbor View Road was unsafe. The visibility is poor as cars head onto big James Island down the causeway after the Buxton bridge.
Of course, we all know that there were many people who drove down Dills Bluff to North Shore until they hit Harbor View and turned left. In the morning traffic jam, they would avoid the traffic on Harbor View. Some people would stop and let them in, holding up everyone trying to leave the Island. No more.
If you are going down Dills Bluff and you want to get onto Harbor View, you can turn down Fort Sumter and catch the light or else you can turn down Waites or James. Don't keep "straight" on Dills Bluff as it turns into North Shore and then comes to Harbor View. You then have no choice but to turn right. You need to go around a "block," perhaps down to Waites and then back down James to Harbor View.
The most hard headed people just won't give up. They still turn left at North Shore to get onto Harbor View Road. It is practically a u-turn!
The Island Sheriff's Patrol has been assigning officers to give tickets to those attempting this maneuver. The intersection is in the City of Charleston and so the City police are working on the problem as well.
Some traffic control devices will be added to make it even more plain that there are no left turns out of North Shore to Harbor View.
Stop doing this now!
Friday, May 19, 2017
Town Resolution on James Island Moratorium
Town Council unanimously approved a resolution Thursday night regarding the James Island moratorium. I placed it on our agenda last week, before the James Island Intergovernmental Council met last Monday.
The resolution welcomed the City of Charleston's six month moratorium on more than four units and more than 1500 square feet in nonresidential zones. The Town's resolution also calls for Charleston County and the City of Folly Beach to adopt similar moratoriums in their areas of jurisdiction on James Island. Further, it calls for the Town's Planning Director to determine what, if any, moratorium is appropriate for the Town.
At the meeting, Councilman Stokes proposed an amendment to the Town's resolution. He added some items from the resolution that had been adopted by the Intergovernmental Council. Our amended resolution calls for a joint James Island Planning Committee that is to develop a James Island overlay zoning district and a James Island Comprehensive Plan. The five items proposed by Mayor Tecklenburg to be addressed by the plan were also added. Those are affordable housing, the Folly Road overlay, drainage improvements, a joint Design Review Board, and the urban growth boundary. It also calls on the four governments with jurisdiction on James Island to send representatives from their planning departments to develop a specific proposal for the joint James Island Planning Committee.
The Town did not adopt a moratorium at our May meeting. We should receive a recommendation from our Planning Director soon and, unless we hold a special meeting earlier, an ordinance will likely come before Council at our June meeting.,
There is substantial interest on Council to pass a moratorium in solidarity with the City of Charleston and the other two governments with planning and zoning jurisdiction on James Island. However, it is important to understand that Town zoning already limits residential development in our community commercial zone to four units per acre. A moratorium is not necessary to prevent more than four units per acre in our nonresidential zones. It is already contrary to the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
The City of Charleston responded to citizen demands for a two year moratorium on apartments with a six month moratorium on more than four units in nonresidential zones and also on commercial development greater than 1500 square feet. This does not prevent apartments, though the number of apartments would be small. I agree with the City's approach that rather than focus on apartments, the goal should be to limit the number of units. I don't think it is important whether a one acre commercial property is subdivided to allow 4 single family homes or if a small 4 unit apartment building is placed on the site with plenty of open space for the residents to enjoy.
However, I am very concerned that a moratorium would delay desirable commercial redevelopment in the Town. Nearly all of our commercially zoned property is on Folly Road and there are next to no vacant parcels. The Town adopted the Folly Road Overlay. If someone is interested in redeveloping one of the aging strip malls in the Town, I think that would be great for everyone on James Island. Such a redevelopment would provide sidewalks, landscaping, and other changes that would improve our commercial core. I do not want to delay an opportunity for improving our Island for six months!
I think it is great that it looks like the City of Charleston will be willing to adopt a modified version of the Folly Road overlay and is putting a temporary hold on commercial development allowed under its current zoning rules until we come to some agreement on appropriate modifications. But our policy is to encourage redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road overlay now.
That is the key issue that our Planning Director must consider before making a recommendation to Town Council and what Council must consider at our June meeting.
The resolution welcomed the City of Charleston's six month moratorium on more than four units and more than 1500 square feet in nonresidential zones. The Town's resolution also calls for Charleston County and the City of Folly Beach to adopt similar moratoriums in their areas of jurisdiction on James Island. Further, it calls for the Town's Planning Director to determine what, if any, moratorium is appropriate for the Town.
At the meeting, Councilman Stokes proposed an amendment to the Town's resolution. He added some items from the resolution that had been adopted by the Intergovernmental Council. Our amended resolution calls for a joint James Island Planning Committee that is to develop a James Island overlay zoning district and a James Island Comprehensive Plan. The five items proposed by Mayor Tecklenburg to be addressed by the plan were also added. Those are affordable housing, the Folly Road overlay, drainage improvements, a joint Design Review Board, and the urban growth boundary. It also calls on the four governments with jurisdiction on James Island to send representatives from their planning departments to develop a specific proposal for the joint James Island Planning Committee.
The Town did not adopt a moratorium at our May meeting. We should receive a recommendation from our Planning Director soon and, unless we hold a special meeting earlier, an ordinance will likely come before Council at our June meeting.,
There is substantial interest on Council to pass a moratorium in solidarity with the City of Charleston and the other two governments with planning and zoning jurisdiction on James Island. However, it is important to understand that Town zoning already limits residential development in our community commercial zone to four units per acre. A moratorium is not necessary to prevent more than four units per acre in our nonresidential zones. It is already contrary to the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
The City of Charleston responded to citizen demands for a two year moratorium on apartments with a six month moratorium on more than four units in nonresidential zones and also on commercial development greater than 1500 square feet. This does not prevent apartments, though the number of apartments would be small. I agree with the City's approach that rather than focus on apartments, the goal should be to limit the number of units. I don't think it is important whether a one acre commercial property is subdivided to allow 4 single family homes or if a small 4 unit apartment building is placed on the site with plenty of open space for the residents to enjoy.
However, I am very concerned that a moratorium would delay desirable commercial redevelopment in the Town. Nearly all of our commercially zoned property is on Folly Road and there are next to no vacant parcels. The Town adopted the Folly Road Overlay. If someone is interested in redeveloping one of the aging strip malls in the Town, I think that would be great for everyone on James Island. Such a redevelopment would provide sidewalks, landscaping, and other changes that would improve our commercial core. I do not want to delay an opportunity for improving our Island for six months!
I think it is great that it looks like the City of Charleston will be willing to adopt a modified version of the Folly Road overlay and is putting a temporary hold on commercial development allowed under its current zoning rules until we come to some agreement on appropriate modifications. But our policy is to encourage redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road overlay now.
That is the key issue that our Planning Director must consider before making a recommendation to Town Council and what Council must consider at our June meeting.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
James Island Intergovernmental Council Meeting Report
The James Island Intergovernmental Council approved a resolution calling for Charleston County, the Town of James Island and the City of Folly Beach to adopt moratoriums on James Island development consistent with that approved by Charleston City Council. The resolution also calls for the formation of a Joint James Island Planning Committee to be tasked with the development of a James Island Overlay Zoning District and a James Island Comprehensive Plan for the consideration of each jurisdiction's Planning Commission.
I moved the resolution be adopted and it was seconded by Mayor Tecklenburg.
Mayor Tecklenburg proposed to amend the resolution to add five proposals for the comprehensive plan for James Island which were related to five proposals for James Island planning and zoning that he had presented earlier in the meeting. These were affordable housing, the urban growth boundary, joint design review board, drainage improvements, and the Folly Road Overlay. I seconded his amendment. Both the amendment and the resolution passed unanimously.
The resolution calls for a representative of the planning department of each jurisdiction to meet and develop a specific proposal for the James Island Planning Committee to be approved by the governing body of each jurisdiction.
JIPSD Commissioner Eugene Platt made a motion for the moratorium to be extended to two years. County Councilman Joe Qualey said it would be difficult to get County Council to agree to even six months. Mayor Tecklenburg said that it was difficult to get City Council to agree to anything more than six month. Several members pointed out that the moratorium could be extended. (I doubt that everything considered in the resolution can come close to be completed in six months, but it might be possible for the City of Charleston and Charleston County to make some key changes in their zoning ordinances to make extension of the moratorium less pressing. We will see.) The motion for a two year moratorium was defeated.
The Intergovernmental Council heard reports about Rethink Folly Road including the Town's grant request from the Council of Governments to complete sidewalks from Camp Road to Ellis Creek. It also heard reports and saw preliminary maps for the proposed 1/2 cent sales tax projects for James Island--Central Park and Riverland, Fort Johnson and Secessionville, Fort Johnson and Camp, and sidewalks on Folly between Camp and George Griffith.
Friday, May 5, 2017
How Should We Provide Services in the Town?
How should we provide services in the Town?
In particular, should the Town continue to obtain sewer, fire protection, and solid waste collection from the James Island Public Service District?
Or should some or all of those services instead be provided by Town government?
In an earlier blog post, one published by the Post and Courier, I said that after the Town is reunited, we should discuss this matter.
Of course, it would be foolish to close down JIPSD operations, sell off its equipment and buildings, lay off its employees and then have the Town build new buildings, buy new equipment, and hire new employees.
It is rather that instead of the JIPSD Commissioners and their District Manager being in charge of all of those operations, some (or all) of them might be transferred to the Town, which means that Town Council, the Mayor and the Town Administrator would manage some (or all) of the services.
Further, instead of having the JIPSD cover the cost of the services by charging sewer fees for sewer services and levying property taxes for fire protection and solid waste collection, the Town would collect some (or all) of the fees and taxes to pay for the costs for some (or all) of the services. Most importantly, the Town could use its other sources of revenue to help fund fire protection and solid waste collection.
I have kept an open mind. I am sure there are advantages and disadvantages specific to each particular service.
But I have always insisted that this decision should be up to the people of James Island. The voters of the JIPSD elect Commissioners and the voters of the Town elect a Mayor and Council. If the voters of James Island believe that all of these services should stay with the JIPSD, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who agree. If, on the other hand, they think that some or all of these services should be transferred from the JIPSD to the Town, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who support change.
Before 2011, nearly all of the voters of the JIPSD were in the Town and all of the voters of the Town were in the JIPSD. (There were maybe 20 people in unincorporated James Island in 2011.)
Today, all of the voters of the Town are in the JIPSD and they make up a majority. However, about 1/3 of the voters of the JIPSD remain in unincorporated James Island. They were in the Town, but were not included in the 2012 incorporation election.
I am committed to giving the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return to the Town. That is why I support legislation in Columbia to make it possible.
The recent Brian Hicks column criticizing the Town because the JIPSD provides fire, solid waste collection, and sewer in the Town was nothing new. For years, elected officials from other local governments in the area have been critical of the Town. They call us a "paper town."
I have always explained that the way we provide fire protection and solid waste collection on James Island may be a little unusual (though hardly unique,) but James Islanders are happy with our approach. If James Islanders want to make changes, it is our decision and we do not have to blindly copy other municipalities.
Brian Hick's claim that it is illegal for the Town to receive services from the JIPSD because a PSD can only provide services in an unincorporated area is false. It up to the people of James Island how we want to organize our services. In particular, we can continue to have the JIPSD provide us some or all of the services it currently provides.
However, there are some James Islanders who feel threatened by even a hint that change is possible. They treat consideration of a shift to Town provision of any service currently provided by the JIPSD as blasphemy.
Supposedly, the Town only exists because of the JIPSD, so it is a sacrilege to even consider shifting any service from the JIPSD to the Town.
That doesn't make any sense. Neither the Town nor the JIPSD were ordained by God to be eternal and neither should be made into idols. Both are human organizations whose purpose is to serve the people of James Island in an effective and efficient manner. Only by a careful weighing of advantages and disadvantages can we determine what is best for the people of James Island.
In particular, should the Town continue to obtain sewer, fire protection, and solid waste collection from the James Island Public Service District?
Or should some or all of those services instead be provided by Town government?
In an earlier blog post, one published by the Post and Courier, I said that after the Town is reunited, we should discuss this matter.
Of course, it would be foolish to close down JIPSD operations, sell off its equipment and buildings, lay off its employees and then have the Town build new buildings, buy new equipment, and hire new employees.
It is rather that instead of the JIPSD Commissioners and their District Manager being in charge of all of those operations, some (or all) of them might be transferred to the Town, which means that Town Council, the Mayor and the Town Administrator would manage some (or all) of the services.
Further, instead of having the JIPSD cover the cost of the services by charging sewer fees for sewer services and levying property taxes for fire protection and solid waste collection, the Town would collect some (or all) of the fees and taxes to pay for the costs for some (or all) of the services. Most importantly, the Town could use its other sources of revenue to help fund fire protection and solid waste collection.
I have kept an open mind. I am sure there are advantages and disadvantages specific to each particular service.
But I have always insisted that this decision should be up to the people of James Island. The voters of the JIPSD elect Commissioners and the voters of the Town elect a Mayor and Council. If the voters of James Island believe that all of these services should stay with the JIPSD, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who agree. If, on the other hand, they think that some or all of these services should be transferred from the JIPSD to the Town, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who support change.
Before 2011, nearly all of the voters of the JIPSD were in the Town and all of the voters of the Town were in the JIPSD. (There were maybe 20 people in unincorporated James Island in 2011.)
Today, all of the voters of the Town are in the JIPSD and they make up a majority. However, about 1/3 of the voters of the JIPSD remain in unincorporated James Island. They were in the Town, but were not included in the 2012 incorporation election.
I am committed to giving the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return to the Town. That is why I support legislation in Columbia to make it possible.
The recent Brian Hicks column criticizing the Town because the JIPSD provides fire, solid waste collection, and sewer in the Town was nothing new. For years, elected officials from other local governments in the area have been critical of the Town. They call us a "paper town."
I have always explained that the way we provide fire protection and solid waste collection on James Island may be a little unusual (though hardly unique,) but James Islanders are happy with our approach. If James Islanders want to make changes, it is our decision and we do not have to blindly copy other municipalities.
Brian Hick's claim that it is illegal for the Town to receive services from the JIPSD because a PSD can only provide services in an unincorporated area is false. It up to the people of James Island how we want to organize our services. In particular, we can continue to have the JIPSD provide us some or all of the services it currently provides.
However, there are some James Islanders who feel threatened by even a hint that change is possible. They treat consideration of a shift to Town provision of any service currently provided by the JIPSD as blasphemy.
Supposedly, the Town only exists because of the JIPSD, so it is a sacrilege to even consider shifting any service from the JIPSD to the Town.
That doesn't make any sense. Neither the Town nor the JIPSD were ordained by God to be eternal and neither should be made into idols. Both are human organizations whose purpose is to serve the people of James Island in an effective and efficient manner. Only by a careful weighing of advantages and disadvantages can we determine what is best for the people of James Island.
A Tale of Two Bills: Contiguity and Annexation
In 2014, Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy each filed a bill that would allow the Town to be reunited. The Senate version of the bill was S 723.
Hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was heavily amended to satisfy concerns raised by various lobbyists, especially those with the special purpose district association and also the association of counties. Both the original and amended version of S 723 is here.
While I was not happy with some of the amendments, I agreed to support the amended bill. It did provide a process to reunite the Town. Trent Kernodle and, apparently, the JIPSD, also agreed to support S 723 as amended.
It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, though all the Democrats were opposed. A hold was placed on the bill by Democrat Senator Kimpson. We now know that this was done at the request of the Coastal Conservation League. That meant it did not go the Senate floor for a vote.
The original version of the bill, without the amendments, passed in the House. Then House Leader Bobby Harrell made the difference. Glenn McConnell was no longer President Pro-Tem of the Senate, which made our task much more difficult there.
James Islanders, including many from our African American communities, contacted Senator Kimpson. He withdrew his hold, but Senator Pinckney put a hold on the bill. Again, this was done at the behest of Coastal Conservation League. By this time, the legislative year was over. Senator Pinckney was also contacted by James Islanders, again including many from our African-American communities, and he agreed to withdraw his hold shortly before he was assassinated.
By this time, Representative McCoy and James Island Town Councilman Josh Stokes began to work on a different bill that would accomplish the same goal with a slightly different approach. Rather than a new method of annexation, this involved a modification of contiguity.
A bill based on this new approach was filed by Representative McCoy near the end of the session in 2016 and then refiled in February 2017 as H 3669. Here is that bill.
H 3669 was scheduled for a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary committee in March. Lobbyists for some special purpose districts in the upstate told the Town's lobbyist, former House Representative Ann Peterson, that they would oppose the new bill, but were still willing to support Senate bill 723 as amended. They said that all of the lobbyists had agreed that the amended version of that bill took care of all of their concerns back in 2014.
Based upon those conversations, McCoy asked the subcommittee Chair to pull H 3669 from the agenda and instead filed a new bill H 4076 which was the same as S 723 as amended from 2014. Here is the that new/old bill.
I asked Senators Campsen and Senn to file a companion bill in the Senate. Senator Campsen, who had co-sponsored the bills that allowed the Town to be incorporated with Senator McConnel, agreed and said he would have staff look at it.
Senator Senn wrote me and said that I needed to get Robert Wise's OK. Robert Wise is the District Manager of the JIPSD.
I asked the District Manager if he would support this bill and to share any concerns he might have with it so that we can make any needed modifications. I was puzzled as to why Senator Senn put the the fate of the people of James Island in the hands of one man, but the voters put her in office, including many on James Island. Wise said he would discuss it with the other directors of the special purpose district association and JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth.
I asked JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth if he would support the bill and he said that he could only support it if the other special purpose districts in the state would support it and said he had some concerns about the bill. I asked him to please share those concerns, but he made no response.
JIPSD Commissioner Inez Brown Crouch asked to have the issue placed upon the JIPSD Commission agenda for their March meeting and have Anne Peterson come explain the bill. I hoped that this would allow us to discover what concerns JIPSD Commissioners had with this bill. Commissioner Brown-Crouch called Hollingsworth who agreed to place it on the agenda, but the executive committee of Commissioners Wilder, Kernodle and Hollingsworth refused to place it on the March agenda. The problem was that Anne Peterson worked for the Town.
For the April meeting, Commissioners Kathy Woolsey and Inez Brown-Crouch again asked to have Representative McCoy explain the bill. It was placed on the agenda. Representative McCoy couldn't make the meeting and asked Chairman Hollingsworth to allow Anne Peterson to explain the bill. Hollingsworth refused because Peterson is a paid lobbyist of the Town. Peterson explained the bill during the public comment period.
When it came up on the agenda, Commissioner Engelman proposed adopting the bill and Commissioner Kernodle seconded.
There was some discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioners Kernodle and Engleman emphasized that that they did not want the Town to take over the JIPSD. Chairman Hollingsworth reported on his call to Mayor Tecklenburg to find the City's position on the bill. The City is opposed to reuniting the Town. Hollingsworth also raised concerns that the PSD is not authorized to hold referendums and asked who would pay for the annexation election? Clearly, he hadn't looked over the bill, since it required the Charleston County election commission to hold the annexation election as it always does and requires the Town to pay for it.
Trent Kernodle was then called upon to give his view of the bill.
The bad news is that he made various confused and inaccurate claims that could be loosely related to points made by the Commissioners. The most serious error was his claim that the bill would substitute a referendum for the existing legal procedures for shifting services from the JIPSD to the Town or else completely dissolving the JIPSD. In reality, the bill just adds the referendum as an additional hurdle.
The good news is that Trent Kernodle appeared to support HB 3669. This was the bill McCoy first filed in 2016 and in February of 2017. If that bill can pass, then it would allow the Town to be reunited.
Having the JIPSD support the bill is important, because Senator Senn insists that the JIPSD, or, more specifically, its District Manager, Robert Wise, "sign off" on any bill to reunite the Town.
I think the best approach is for the JIPSD to join with the Town in supporting H 3669.
Hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was heavily amended to satisfy concerns raised by various lobbyists, especially those with the special purpose district association and also the association of counties. Both the original and amended version of S 723 is here.
While I was not happy with some of the amendments, I agreed to support the amended bill. It did provide a process to reunite the Town. Trent Kernodle and, apparently, the JIPSD, also agreed to support S 723 as amended.
It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, though all the Democrats were opposed. A hold was placed on the bill by Democrat Senator Kimpson. We now know that this was done at the request of the Coastal Conservation League. That meant it did not go the Senate floor for a vote.
The original version of the bill, without the amendments, passed in the House. Then House Leader Bobby Harrell made the difference. Glenn McConnell was no longer President Pro-Tem of the Senate, which made our task much more difficult there.
James Islanders, including many from our African American communities, contacted Senator Kimpson. He withdrew his hold, but Senator Pinckney put a hold on the bill. Again, this was done at the behest of Coastal Conservation League. By this time, the legislative year was over. Senator Pinckney was also contacted by James Islanders, again including many from our African-American communities, and he agreed to withdraw his hold shortly before he was assassinated.
By this time, Representative McCoy and James Island Town Councilman Josh Stokes began to work on a different bill that would accomplish the same goal with a slightly different approach. Rather than a new method of annexation, this involved a modification of contiguity.
A bill based on this new approach was filed by Representative McCoy near the end of the session in 2016 and then refiled in February 2017 as H 3669. Here is that bill.
H 3669 was scheduled for a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary committee in March. Lobbyists for some special purpose districts in the upstate told the Town's lobbyist, former House Representative Ann Peterson, that they would oppose the new bill, but were still willing to support Senate bill 723 as amended. They said that all of the lobbyists had agreed that the amended version of that bill took care of all of their concerns back in 2014.
Based upon those conversations, McCoy asked the subcommittee Chair to pull H 3669 from the agenda and instead filed a new bill H 4076 which was the same as S 723 as amended from 2014. Here is the that new/old bill.
I asked Senators Campsen and Senn to file a companion bill in the Senate. Senator Campsen, who had co-sponsored the bills that allowed the Town to be incorporated with Senator McConnel, agreed and said he would have staff look at it.
Senator Senn wrote me and said that I needed to get Robert Wise's OK. Robert Wise is the District Manager of the JIPSD.
I asked the District Manager if he would support this bill and to share any concerns he might have with it so that we can make any needed modifications. I was puzzled as to why Senator Senn put the the fate of the people of James Island in the hands of one man, but the voters put her in office, including many on James Island. Wise said he would discuss it with the other directors of the special purpose district association and JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth.
I asked JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth if he would support the bill and he said that he could only support it if the other special purpose districts in the state would support it and said he had some concerns about the bill. I asked him to please share those concerns, but he made no response.
JIPSD Commissioner Inez Brown Crouch asked to have the issue placed upon the JIPSD Commission agenda for their March meeting and have Anne Peterson come explain the bill. I hoped that this would allow us to discover what concerns JIPSD Commissioners had with this bill. Commissioner Brown-Crouch called Hollingsworth who agreed to place it on the agenda, but the executive committee of Commissioners Wilder, Kernodle and Hollingsworth refused to place it on the March agenda. The problem was that Anne Peterson worked for the Town.
For the April meeting, Commissioners Kathy Woolsey and Inez Brown-Crouch again asked to have Representative McCoy explain the bill. It was placed on the agenda. Representative McCoy couldn't make the meeting and asked Chairman Hollingsworth to allow Anne Peterson to explain the bill. Hollingsworth refused because Peterson is a paid lobbyist of the Town. Peterson explained the bill during the public comment period.
When it came up on the agenda, Commissioner Engelman proposed adopting the bill and Commissioner Kernodle seconded.
There was some discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioners Kernodle and Engleman emphasized that that they did not want the Town to take over the JIPSD. Chairman Hollingsworth reported on his call to Mayor Tecklenburg to find the City's position on the bill. The City is opposed to reuniting the Town. Hollingsworth also raised concerns that the PSD is not authorized to hold referendums and asked who would pay for the annexation election? Clearly, he hadn't looked over the bill, since it required the Charleston County election commission to hold the annexation election as it always does and requires the Town to pay for it.
Trent Kernodle was then called upon to give his view of the bill.
The bad news is that he made various confused and inaccurate claims that could be loosely related to points made by the Commissioners. The most serious error was his claim that the bill would substitute a referendum for the existing legal procedures for shifting services from the JIPSD to the Town or else completely dissolving the JIPSD. In reality, the bill just adds the referendum as an additional hurdle.
The good news is that Trent Kernodle appeared to support HB 3669. This was the bill McCoy first filed in 2016 and in February of 2017. If that bill can pass, then it would allow the Town to be reunited.
Having the JIPSD support the bill is important, because Senator Senn insists that the JIPSD, or, more specifically, its District Manager, Robert Wise, "sign off" on any bill to reunite the Town.
I think the best approach is for the JIPSD to join with the Town in supporting H 3669.
Monday, April 24, 2017
AG Opinions on Shifting the Date of Elections
It was brought to my attention that the South Carolina Attorney General's Office gave an opinion in 2005 on the question of shortening terms of office regarding the Town of Mount Pleasant's shift in election dates. I have reviewed that and earlier opinions.
I was aware of Attorney General Opinions that argued that a municipality may set an election date and allow members of Council and the Mayor to serve beyond the two or four year term set by statute. I reviewed at least one in 2014 when this matter was before Council.
I was unaware or had forgotten that the South Carolina Constitution states that elected officials continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified. The Town's ordinance to that effect is not really necessary.
I think the AG opinion is correct in that Council may not expressly change the length of term of office to reflect any change in the date of the election. An ordinance stating that a term of office will be three years and three months or five years and three months would be inconsistent with the SC Code.
As I read the opinions that stated that Council could by ordinance shorten terms by changing the election date, I was puzzled that the reason given was only that it was for the same reason that they could be extended. To me, that is plainly not correct. The provision of the South Carolina Constitution that elected officials continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified provides for continuity in government and not a blanket authority to call elections at any time and cut short existing terms.
One Attorney General's Opinion cited another. The 1989 opinion that argued that a shortening of terms would be legal referred not to a change in the date of an election but rather a reduction in the "lame duck" period by moving the time those elected to office in Beaufort were sworn in from early July to shortly after the election in May. A more or less standard two month delay was shortened to a week. That seems like good policy to me. But was it legal? Supposedly, the home rule amendments to the South Carolina Constitution allows municipalities to set any term they like!
Was there some argument for that claim? Not really. In 1980, the Attorney General's Office was asked about extending terms in Maudlin and opined that whoever creates an office can set its term and because of the home rule amendments to the South Carolina Constitution, local governments appear to be free to do as they like.
It is certainly correct that the opinion given as to why Maudlin can extend terms would imply that terms can be shortened as well. Still, I would not want to depend on that opinion. It seems to be a claim that the statute setting municipal terms at two and four years is an unconstitutional violation local home rule. Oddly enough, the 1980 decision did not even mention the statutory terms of two or four years.
The later Attorney General opinions are inconsistent with that earlier opinion since they argue that municipalities cannot expressly set their terms at anything other than the two or four years set by the legislature, citing a 1976 ruling by the Supreme Court that municipalities are creatures of state government.
How can the two statutes--one allowing municipalities to set election dates and the other setting terms at two and four years--be consistent? If a municipal council moves the election to an earlier date, the result is that the incumbent continues until the term set by statute is complete, perhaps as a lame duck. If the election is held after the term is complete, then the constitutional provision that officers serve until their successors are elected applies. The statutory term commences whenever the new candidate is elected and qualified.
The South Carolina Constitution does provide that all statutes be liberally construed in favor of the powers and responsibilities of local government. I favor local government autonomy and in general think that the SC legislature interferes too much. However, the South Carolina courts have not read this provision of the South Carolina Constitution anything like what was suggested in the 1980 Attorney General's Opinion. I would not be confident that a municipality would succeed against a challenge by a local elected official whose term determined by statute and referendum by voters was cut short by a change in the election date.
Regardless, I think that having the next election as intended when the ordinances were passed by the initial Council elected in 2012, that is, in November of 2019, after the four year terms are complete, is the best approach. Having the current Council vote to move the election forward by two years and shorten the terms by nine months would be the wrong thing to do.
I was aware of Attorney General Opinions that argued that a municipality may set an election date and allow members of Council and the Mayor to serve beyond the two or four year term set by statute. I reviewed at least one in 2014 when this matter was before Council.
I was unaware or had forgotten that the South Carolina Constitution states that elected officials continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified. The Town's ordinance to that effect is not really necessary.
I think the AG opinion is correct in that Council may not expressly change the length of term of office to reflect any change in the date of the election. An ordinance stating that a term of office will be three years and three months or five years and three months would be inconsistent with the SC Code.
As I read the opinions that stated that Council could by ordinance shorten terms by changing the election date, I was puzzled that the reason given was only that it was for the same reason that they could be extended. To me, that is plainly not correct. The provision of the South Carolina Constitution that elected officials continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified provides for continuity in government and not a blanket authority to call elections at any time and cut short existing terms.
One Attorney General's Opinion cited another. The 1989 opinion that argued that a shortening of terms would be legal referred not to a change in the date of an election but rather a reduction in the "lame duck" period by moving the time those elected to office in Beaufort were sworn in from early July to shortly after the election in May. A more or less standard two month delay was shortened to a week. That seems like good policy to me. But was it legal? Supposedly, the home rule amendments to the South Carolina Constitution allows municipalities to set any term they like!
Was there some argument for that claim? Not really. In 1980, the Attorney General's Office was asked about extending terms in Maudlin and opined that whoever creates an office can set its term and because of the home rule amendments to the South Carolina Constitution, local governments appear to be free to do as they like.
It is certainly correct that the opinion given as to why Maudlin can extend terms would imply that terms can be shortened as well. Still, I would not want to depend on that opinion. It seems to be a claim that the statute setting municipal terms at two and four years is an unconstitutional violation local home rule. Oddly enough, the 1980 decision did not even mention the statutory terms of two or four years.
The later Attorney General opinions are inconsistent with that earlier opinion since they argue that municipalities cannot expressly set their terms at anything other than the two or four years set by the legislature, citing a 1976 ruling by the Supreme Court that municipalities are creatures of state government.
How can the two statutes--one allowing municipalities to set election dates and the other setting terms at two and four years--be consistent? If a municipal council moves the election to an earlier date, the result is that the incumbent continues until the term set by statute is complete, perhaps as a lame duck. If the election is held after the term is complete, then the constitutional provision that officers serve until their successors are elected applies. The statutory term commences whenever the new candidate is elected and qualified.
The South Carolina Constitution does provide that all statutes be liberally construed in favor of the powers and responsibilities of local government. I favor local government autonomy and in general think that the SC legislature interferes too much. However, the South Carolina courts have not read this provision of the South Carolina Constitution anything like what was suggested in the 1980 Attorney General's Opinion. I would not be confident that a municipality would succeed against a challenge by a local elected official whose term determined by statute and referendum by voters was cut short by a change in the election date.
Regardless, I think that having the next election as intended when the ordinances were passed by the initial Council elected in 2012, that is, in November of 2019, after the four year terms are complete, is the best approach. Having the current Council vote to move the election forward by two years and shorten the terms by nine months would be the wrong thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)